MyWiki:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article Workshop/Header}}

Submissions

Uintatherium

My rework of the Uintatherium article a couple of months ago led to it being bumped up to B-class. Given how much work I have already put into it (up to and including creating my first diagram for it, which I do intend to rework at some point!), and more importantly the fact that Uintatherium is fairly well-known by the standards of... large, weirdly ornamented mammals from the Palaeogene, I would greatly appreciate some help with bumping it up to a higher rating. I would gladly settle for GA, unless I'm majorly underestimating its notability and it turns out that FA would be better. Thanks in advance to whoever responds. Borophagus (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Jens

Looks great. You are good at summary style, and it reads very fluently already. It has potential for both GAN and FAC, just needs polishing. I leave some comments below (I got halfway through, will try to do the rest in the next days). Apart from that, a copy edit is needed (often just simple errors like missing words or missing dots). You could have a go-through trying to fine-tune yourself, but I try to find time for a copy edit soon. I can also check sourcing (which has become much more important also at GAN), to make sure we are all good on that front.

Not strictly necessary, but an annotated skull diagram (maybe just one of the old drawings) pointing out the anatomical landmarks mentioned in the text would be extremely helpful for the general reader.

Quick read-through, first half

• Don't link common words (skeleton)
• Link institutional abbreviations to the respective museum (YPM)
• "was thought to have been a saber-toothed and carnivorous" – a saber-toothed what?
• "Eighteen days after the description of Uintatherium, Cope and Marsh both named new genera of Uinta dinoceratans" – you did not explain what "Uinta" means
• "in his "garbled" telegram" – who is quoted here? Cope himself?
• "several additional species by Marsh throughout the 1870s and 1880s, many based on fragmentary material." – "several" or "many"?
• "leading to theories like Cope's proboscidean assessment" – confusing and unexplained at this point. Save for paleobiology?
• "William Henry Flower, Hunterian Professor of Comparative Anatomy," – you didn't introduce other names linke this.
• "A cast of a Uintatherium skeleton is on display at the Utah Field House of Natural History State Park. A skeleton of Uintatherium is also on display at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC." – A reader would expect that these are the only specimens on display. I don't think that's the case? Why do you mention these particular ones? Looks a bit random.
• "In 1977, Gabounia reported" – full name?
• "referrable" – that's jargon, use "assigned" instead
• "Fossils assigned tentatively to Uintatherium have been described from parts of Asia since 1962" – later you say that these have not been assigned to "Uintatherium itself", which is contradictory.
• "an almost intact skull" – what is an intact skull? Complete skull?
• "The latter two wrote" – they are not even mentioned in the previous sentence. Repeat their names.
• "proboscideans (relatives of elephants)" – should be "elephants and relatives", right?
• Henry Fairfield Osborn - link
• "basal" – link/explain
• "Donald R. Prothero, Earl M. Manning, and M. S. Fischer, in 1988" – to reduce clutter, and to be consistent with other articles and general guidelines, you could remove the middle initials (unless they are required to recognise the person), and shorten to "Donald Prothero and colleagues". At other places you use "et al." but at least at FAC, you would have to switch to "and colleagues".
• "recovered Uintatherium (the only dinoceratan included in the dataset) within a clade consisting entirely of SANUs" – that would mean that Uintatherium was a SANU?
• anagenesis needs explanation. Graviportal needs, too.
• I wonder if a cladogram that includes other dinoceratans would be more informative than the currently used one that just includes Uintatherium?
• "(if that clade exists)" – I would remove this; a clade does not really "exist", it is a construct.
• "They project far enough that they completely overhang the external nares." – specify the direction of the projection (towards the front?)
• "the condyles are deflected posteriorly" – explain. Jaw joint? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching all of that. There was some pretty bad stuff in there and I'm not sure how I missed it. I've made pretty much all of the necessary changes, barring a more thorough check for links etc which I'll do in a bit. Unfortunately I am very limited in what I can do phylogeny-wise, as to my knowledge dinoceratans do not show up in phylogenetic analyses very often. The one where it is a SANU and the one in the 2015 Burger abstract are the only ones I am aware of which even include them. A skull diagram is definitely something worth looking into, and I'll get to work on one. Borophagus (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

More comments

• Two times in the article, you mention that Uintatherium lived in temperate climates. This cannot be, the Eocene was warm. The source you cite is about the high arctic, which indeed was temperate at the time.
• Analysis of its tooth enamel has demonstrated the presence of oblique ("zigzag") lines – Specify what type of analysis was required to see these lines and where (thin sections?)
• Uintatherium has a dental formula of 0.1.3.33.1.3.3, – I know you have a footnote explaining, but it is better to spell that out in the text first, then maybe write "… resulting in a dental formula of …".
• Kemp, in his 2004 book, says that "The dentition of dinoceratans shows a tendency to reduce and eventually lose the upper incisors, but to retain and enlarge the upper canine". Although you mention both features in the article, this places it nicely into context. Just for your information.
• Did you consider Osborn 1910 "The age of mammals"? He says where the name "Uintatherium" comes from, which I do not yet see mentioned in the article.
• You could cite Benton "Vertebrate Palaeontology" for the claim that the brain was "unusually small", and only then quote Marsh. Right now, the problem is that you just quote that extremely old Marsh source, leaving doubts whether or not that assessment is still valid. (I mean, cite newer, secondary sources whenever possible)
• Dentition section should probably be two paragraphs; it's like a wall of text
• Uintatheriines as a whole are characterised by – "as a whole" here is unnecessary fluff that could be removed. I saw it elsewhere in the article too.
• The first cervical (neck) vertebra, the atlas, and the second cervical vertebra, the axis, are particularly proboscidean-like. – I feel that this could be removed. You compare a lot with proboscideans in that section, possibly because it's based on Marsh? I feel that over-reliance on Marsh here might become a problem (including undue weight to his proboscidean idea), and it might actually be prudent to cut this whole section down, removing most references to proboscideans and keeping just the uncontroversial facts.
• Only four of Uintatherium's caudal (tail) vertebrae are known. – You cite a 1881 source here. Are you really sure that no more tail vertebrae have been found since?
• They were bore long – For a second I read "They were boring", but that was apparently not your intention.
• Looks like Marsh (1886) has a skeletal diagram, maybe something to include?

I didn't get through completely yet, but will continue when time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again! Have done what I can for now, although I am on a time crunch this morning so there are some things I will have to do later. Most if not all of what was written in the palaeoenvironment section was not written by myself, but by A Cynical Idealist, so I have not read through most of the literature relevant to that area as of yet. I will do so this afternoon. Borophagus (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Interim comments I checked some sources, and cannot find issues here at least in the first half of the article. That's great. However, three general points for your consideration:

• Try to provide page numbers for books and longer papers, and ideally even for shorter papers when the information is not easy to find. Note that GAN now has mandatory spot checks, so it is best to make it as easy as possible for the reviewer to check sources.
• In the "Description", maybe try to condense the stuff that is only cited to the 19-century sources a bit. These are historical sources, and a lot has changed since then. Just because Marsh found a particular feature of interest, it doesn't mean that it has any relevance today. I would personally remove some of the more obscure features that are just sourced to Marsh, and also be more careful with his comparisons. This point is probably not important for GAN but might be raised at FAC.
• Take a look at the German-language article. I know the author, and he is a top author, having written most of the extinct mammals that the German Wikipedia has. You could just translate the text and read through. I am sure that gives you some valuable ideas how to improve the article. What immediately strikes me that he seems to have an image of the holotype, which is not in the English article?

I may continue reviewing once you have addressed everything so far; you may ping me when you're ready. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack Apologies for taking so long. I've had to prioritise university work recently, and between that and personal projects I haven't had much time to work on things. That said, I've been picking away at it (and especially giving page numbers), and I think it may be in a better spot? I may be mistaken though. Borophagus (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Ha, no worries, and WP:NORUSH applies. It takes 100 days after the last edit until the bot will archive this section, and even when it does, you are welcome to re-open it any time you want. The article made a lot of progress. You are still working on some issues, right (e.g., the temperate climate issue pointed out above)? When nominating at GAN, it is advisable to respond to each reviewer's suggestion individually, so that both the reviewer and you can keep track of what has been addressed and what not. No need to do that here (although I personally do it, as it helps me to keep the overview). Anyway, I offered a copy edit, so let me know when the article is ready for it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, noted, and thanks. I usually do that, but for whatever reason it consistently slipped my mind this time around. I'll do some digging regarding the climate issue and anything else which pops up and will let you know when things should be ready for a copyedit. Borophagus (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack I have been picking away at the article over the last few weeks (as time and procrastination have allowed) and I think most, if not all if the glaringly missing page numbers should be sorted, along with dealing with the statement regarding climate and a few other miscellaneous changes. Also changed the skull comparison a bit, and I have a size diagram in review. I have focused mainly on books or monographs for the page number additions, so I may have missed something here and there, but I am fairly certain that side of things at least is in order now. I think it may be ready now? Borophagus (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Copy edit comments

• Can we change all "Fort Bridger Basin" (sometimes you just write "Bridger Basin") to "Bridger Formation" and all "Washakie Basin" to "Washakie Formation", or is this distinction important? They have not been found within the basin but outside the formation, have they? The benefit would be that we get rid of unnecessary terms that just confuse readers.

Done.

• Wood, Horace Elmer. "The problem of the Uintatherium molars. Bulletin of the AMNH; v. 48, article 18". Biodiversity Heritage Library. Retrieved 10 June 2025. – Lacks year, don't need retrieval date.

Done.

• This marks the first mention of an uintathere in the scientific literature. – But the mention suggested a brontothere?

Removed completely.

• IVPP V6379: Give catalog number in-text as you do for the other holotype, and link IVPP?

Done.

• in no small part because of how small and specialized anagalids are in relation. – can't follow

Reworded. Hopefully a bit more intuitive now?

• though some authors use only one family – which of the two families do they use?

Sorted.

• though one early record by Marsh gave a dental formula of – so we don't know which one is correct? If so, the "early" is a bit misleading since the Osborn source is even older.

Reworded (just removed the "early").

• prismatic light guides – any wikilink?

Not on this method specifically, though to compensate I have included a link to the prismatic light article and the section on other uses.

• similar to those observed in many other Paleogene herbivores, including the pantodont Coryphodon, as well as more omnivorous and carnivorous taxa such as entelodontids and hyenas; – I would simplify here and make the sentence much more concise.

Done.

• I think we should use precise links to the Glossary of mammalian dental topography; for example, [[Glossary of mammalian dental topography#Entoconid|Entoconid]] takes you directly to the "Entoconid" entry.

Works for me, good call.

• the bones were abnormally solidly in construction – needs rewording. Are they thickened, internally dense, or both? And why is pachyostosis discussed under "Vertebral column"? Are the limb bones not affected? (I see you repeat it there; best discuss it only once at the beginning of the description section). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the other mentions of pachyostosis and just retained the one at the beginning.

• The first cervical (neck) vertebra, the atlas, is massive, while the one behind it, the axis, is short and robust. – Is there a difference between "massive" and "robust"? The reader will think yes, simply because you used different terms.

Corrected. Whoops.

• The vertebral centra – add explanation (bodies)

Done.

• All of the dorsal (back) vertebrae are slightly opisthocoelous – You could avoid the term "dorsal" here (which is also confusing to a general reader, because you define the same word as meaning "towards the top"). You could simply say "All thoracic and lumbar vertebrae …", since you use both terms later anyways. This way it is much clearer; a reader may not necessarily get that thoracic and lumbar vertebrae together comprise the dorsal vertebral series.

Done.

• and has a rounded proximal (near) end – "rear"? But are you sure – note that we are in the foot, where "proximal" means "closer to the body", so I would just write "and has a rounded upper end" and that should suffice.

Done.

• and grew increasingly rugose distally (away from the center of the body) – I don't think you need "distal" here. What about "and their surface becomes increasingly rugose towards the toe tips".

Changed.

• Any reason why you use "Great Trochanter" and not "Greater Trochanter"?

That was an error on my end. Good catch.

• for the elements of the tarsus (ankle and foot) – The explanation does not make sense; the tarsus is part of the foot. Maybe reword as "for the ankle bones (tarsals)".

Done.

• Like other uintatheriids, the molars of Uintatherium were bilophodont (two-ridged).[23][49] Animals with this cheek tooth morphology – A basic writing rule is "use the same term for the same thing". Use either molar or cheek tooth, but not both interchangeably, otherwise a reader assumes you refer to two different things.

Done.

• This trend towards aridification was facilitated by a general decline in the amount of precipitation in North America – "facilitated" is the wrong word I think; it means something is made easier for someone, but for whom? And isn't less rain the main factor leading to aridification? Even the Rocky Mountains would only have caused less rain, leading to aridification? If so, maybe "due to a general decrease in precipitation" (which is also more concise; "decline in the amount of" is unnecessary wordy).

Done.

• Variations in sea-levels – do you mean the water level of the lakes or the sea level?

I didn't write this passage myself, and Google Translate was very unhelpful (my usual, DeepL, seems to be down), so I've removed the mention of water level variations.

• Uintatherium anceps is known from various strata – This just introduces yet another term ("strata") but without providing any information. Maybe instead list the formations in which Uintatherium occurs?

Done.

• That's it! After that, all should be in great shape, I hope. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you so much for all the help. If there is nothing else (fingers crossed that all of my changes have furthered it), I will put it up for GAN. Borophagus (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Megistaspis

I rewrote the Megistaspis article and would ultimately like to bump it up to GA or FA. Could someone rate it? Thanks in advance. African Mud Turtle (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Can someone also grade this article? African Mud Turtle (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Jens

Let's walk through the Good Article criteria (WP:GACR6):

1 Well-written – The main issue here is that compliance with WP:MTAU is required. Means: You can't assume that your readers have so much background knowledge.

• Let's take the first sentence of the lead: Megistaspis (Greek for "largest shield")[2] is a genus of isoteline asaphid trilobites that lived from the Ibexian to the Caradoc. First, "genus" is not linked. Make sure to link all technical terms (in both lead and body, but only once in each). Second, "isoteline asaphid trilobites" is too complicated, introduce stuff one by one (maybe remove "isoteline" and explain that later). Third, more important than mentioning "Ibexian" and "Caradoc" would be to mention Cambrian and Ordovician, which are more familiar to readers, and, if possible, give a rough time scale in millions of years as explanation
• Later, "biozones" should be explained as well.
• In 1956, Valdar Jaanusson recognized that the genus Megalaspis Angelin was a junior homonym of the fish genus Megalaspis – This is an example where you best just avoid the technical term (junior homonym); instead, you could write "recognized that the name Megalaspis was preoccupied by a genus of fish".
• Also, don't repeat technical notation like Megalaspis Angelin (just use the genus name), as general readers will be confused here.
• This observation is supported by its flattened exoskeleton, elevated holochroal eyes, and the large glabellar node (a swelling on the posteriormost lobe of the glabella). – And here, you need to explain: Why is the glabellar node indicating a shallow infaunal life habit?

These are just some examples, the article needs much work in this direction. Most generally, only write what you really understand. See also have our Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Writing tips.

• The lead should summarise the entire article (should be longer), and all information should be repeated in the body (the Greek for "largest shield" is not).

• Jaanusson 1956 created two subspecies: M. (Megistaspis) and M. (Megistaspidella) – What subspecies?

2 Verifiable Checking source 11. It is cited correctly, but:

• Paraphrasing is a bit too close. Formulations like "organ as high as possible", "a narrow band sloping", "separated as a unit from the anterior parts" are copied from the source. Write in your own words.
• And yeah, I know that this is hard, especially for such an article. Horizontally, the visual field extends from straight in front of the eye to approximately 15° behind the axial lobe posteriorly – here, you seem to have tried to explain in your own words, but this formulation does not really make sense. It does not just extend "behind the axial lobe", it does extend past the body midline (to the other side of the body).
• The Paleobiological Database is generally not a usable source, although there are exceptions. I don't think it should be used to source the range of the genus, as it just indiscriminately includes anything published. A secondary source is better here. See [1].

Broad in its coverage

• Etymology should be explained in the main text, otherwise we are good here I think.

Images and stuff

• "Figure 4 - Dorsal and lateral reconstruction of the visual field of Megistaspis (Rhinoferus) hyorrhina based on PMO 162.658-659.jpg" – where does it say that this is under a free license?

The most important step to improve is to try to better write in your own words; try to "translate" the content for a general reader, making sure that your readers really understand. You don't have (and should not) to include all the detail; it is more important to explain the most important facts well. I know that this is about the most difficult thing in writing, but I think you're on the right track. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I will address the other concerns later, but for now, the journal in which Image 4 is published releases all its works as CC-BY-4.0. 72.83.94.226 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I attempted to paraphrase source 11 in the Burrowing and sensation paragraph and expanded the lede. I also added a small summary of distribution, though that may not be necessary. African Mud Turtle (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus

I seek to get Carcharodontosaurus to FA and was recommended I send it to workshop. If I could get any thoughts on the article, I would greatly appreciate it. AFH (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• You still have inconsistent notations; sometimes you write "In 2020, Rauhut", sometimes use the technical "Rauhut (2025)"
• avoid "notably" (see WP:PEACOCK)
• The Chure orbit paper is from 1998, not 2000?
• Daniel Chure suggested that these projections were caused by the ligamentum suborbitale – not really "caused", rather they supported the ligamentum. However, you make it sound as if this would be the explanation for the greatly restricted orbit in large theropods. Chure doesn't say this; he says the cause of the restricted orbits is unknown.
• I think the "orbit" section should be much more concise. You use a lot of words while saying little. And it is also not really focused on the topic of the article (this genus). In many large-skulled theropods, the orbits bear unusual shapes and are nearly divided into dorsal and ventral sections. This evolved convergently, with medium-large theropods from Abelisauridae, Carcharodontosauridae, and more having this condition. Notably, the purpose of this large, split orbit is unknown. In Carcharodontosaurus, Abelisaurus, and some other theropods, this is created by an anterior projection of the postorbital bone into the orbit. However, there is lots of variation in this condition, with theropods like Allosaurus having a less extreme postorbital projection. – I would reduce this to just one sentence: In many large-skulled theropods including Carcharodontosaurus, the orbit is divided into an upper and a lower section by a forward projection of the postorbital bone. The function of this subdivision is unknown. This covers the key point, as I don't think this is the place to discuss general theropod skull evolution in detail. You could, however, add "They eye was located in the upper section", to help the general reader getting along. Since this is rather descriptive, it would alternatively fit in the "Description" section.
• Will try to provide more feedback and do copy-edits if time allows.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

As with the FAC, I'll review once Jens is done here so we don't thread the same ground. It might be a bit of a difficult subject for first FA, perhaps some simpler taxa you've worked on could be easier training. FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ll implement these suggestions, thank you AFH (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Holocephali

Not an entirely paleontological article (the group still has living members) but well within the scope of the project. I largely finished work on this several months back, and have only made minor tweaks since then in accordance with a recent paper. Since I sunk a lot of time and energy into this article, and since it is, in my opinion, quite comprehensive, I am considering submitting for GA. There are... a lot of sources, many of which are not very easy to obtain, and I would be more than happy to send my copies if anyone needs to spot-check any information. I may also post Ornithoprion, a holocephalan genus article, to the workshop sometime soon as well, since I am considering taking it to FAC. Gasmasque (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Jens I will see what I can do to help out:

• Some sentences in the lead are a bit convoluted. Try to form more simple, shorter sentences to make the lead accessible to as many readers as possible? For example, While the only living holocephalans are three families within a single order which together are commonly known as chimaeras, the group includes many extinct orders and was far more diverse during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras – here I suggest to simplify a bit (maybe you could skip "within a single order", or write "The only living holocephalans are the chimaeras, although the group includes …"? Alternatively, you could also separate this into two sentences, or at least avoid the construction with "While".
• Several different definitions of Holocephali exist, with the group sometimes considered a less inclusive clade within the larger subclasses Euchondrocephali or Subterbranchialia, and in some works having many of its members are arranged in the now obsolete groups Paraselachimorpha and Bradyodonti. – Here I do not follow.
• Some missing wikilinks in the lead (molecular clock, family)
• Many early holocephalans had skulls and bodies which were unlike modern chimaeras – here, you assume that the reader already knows a fair bit about chimaeras. Maybe describe them first?
• The bodies of most holocephalans were covered in tooth-like scales termed dermal denticles – if this does not apply to chimaeras, add "extinct" for clarity?
• Holocephalans are sexually dimorphic, with males possessing both claspers on the pelvic fins and additional specialized clasping organs on the head and before the pelvic fins. – "Claspers" could be explained here. Also, the term "sexual dimorphism" is typically applied to features that are not directly involved in reproduction, but you only list reproductive differences between the sexes? I guess that claspers count as sexual dimorphism, but then, I'm not sure if it is worth pointing this out – you could do well without the technical term "sexual dimorphism" in the lead unless there is some more unexpected dimorphism.
• durophagous needs explanation
• these plates were specialized into fused structures termed "tooth whorls" – you could simply write these plates were fused together and coiled up to form a "tooth whorl" or something similar, no need for the "specialized" here. Ideally, try to describe what "tooth whorl" means.
• far back as the Early Carboniferous Subperiod – I think you could remove the "subperiod" entirely here, adding yet another term does not help I think.
• Holocephali was first proposed as "Holocephala" by Johannes Müller, and was formally described by naturalist Charles Lucien Bonaparte. – lacks years.
• Fossil taxa – remember to link technical terms (here: taxa) in the body again, even if already linked in the lead. Same with Chondrichthyes.
• by the naturalist Louis Agassiz between 1833 and 1843 in Researches sur Les Poissons Fossiles – If you give the title, you should say what this is: a book? A journal? I also wonder why this title is relevant to mention when the title where the taxon was first defined apparently is not?
• tooth and spine genera – that's jargon, I would spell that out (genera only known from teeth or spines)
• During the late 1800s, researchers such as Fredrick McCoy and James William Davis questioned the association between Paleozoic taxa and Heterodontus. – "association" is a bit awkward here? Is "link" a better word, or "relationship"?
• recognized many fragmentary fossil fishes as forming a distinct group, and in 1921 united them under – this again strikes me as more convoluted than it has to be. When he already recognized that they form a group, do we have to point out that he then "united them" again? Is the "fragmentary" really pertinent here? Maybe simply say that British paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward united many fossil fishes under the new order Bradyodonti in 1921 or similar; the original sentence, although much longer, does not really say more than this, at least now without further context.
• The broadest usage of Bradyodonti encompassed an assemblage of fishes roughly equivalent to total-group Holocephali – this is unclear based on the context you provide. When discussing the concept Bradyodonti, you do not say how Holocephali fit into it at the time; instead, you give a new term (Chimaeriformes) without introducing it; were Chimaeriformes and Holocephali considered as synonyms?
• and its composition remains similar to Holocephali as used by modern authors – "remains" is a bit confusing as the clade is obsolete? Maybe add "and the clade is now considered obsolete" or something for clarity.
• While treated as a subclass of the class Chondrichthyes by modern authors (e.g. Joseph Nelson), Holocephali has alternatively been ranked as an order, a superorder, or a class. – Does this mean the alternatives are no longer valid? The "While" is confusing as it implies "at the same time", but it follows a "has been" sentence part.
• Taxonomy according to the Fifth Edition of Fishes of the World (2016)[18]: 48–51  based on the work of Lund & Grogan (1997; 2004; 2012)[3][21] – Is it possible to simplify this table caption? If the list is from "Fishes of the World", we do not need to state where that book in turn is based on, especially not in a caption. Same with the next table. Maybe footnotes are possible if this information is really necessary?
• There are five duplicate references (you can highlight them using this script: User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences).
• Will try to continue reading later. Hope that already helps a bit! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This is very helpful, I appreciate your quick response to my post! I've tried to incorporate the changes you've suggested, and will continue to de-fluff some of the text further down the article. The writing quality is admittedly not the best in the world (I have a bit of an issue with run-on sentences), so I commend your efforts trudging through some of the denser paragraphs. Gasmasque (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• is ossified to provide additional strength. The mineralized tissues may form – are you using "ossified" and "mineralized" as synonyms here? If so, stick with one term, or else it is misleading.
• The mineralized tissues may form either as a network of hexagonal tessellations coating the outer surface of the underlying flexible cartilage, or in certain regions (e.g. the reproductive organs, lower jaw and vertebrae) dense, reinforced fibers interwoven with the cartilage termed fibrocartilage. – Hard to read; split in two sentences, resolve the bracket.
• In many extinct holocephalans the tessellations are large and hexagonal – You are implying here that in the modern forms they are not hexagonal, contradicting your earlier statement that they are generally hexagonal.
• (sometimes termed autostylic) – I suggest to add a "Notes" section, and move this to there (and probably some others), if it is necessary at all. This addition does not seem strictly necessary for understanding the text and impede reading flow. Massospondylus has an example of such a section.
• autodiastyly links to fish jaw, but the term is not even mentioned in that article, so the link is useless
• The anatomical terminology used to describe histology and arrangement of holocephalan dentin is inconsistent,[7]: 18–19  and the same forms have been given different names by different authors. – This, and the synonyms in the following sentences, is also a typical usecase for a footnote. I think it is best to focus on providing an accessible, high-level overview of the topic, rather than diving into discussions on usage of anatomical terminology.
• Orodontiformes is sometimes considered an artificial (unnatural) grouping – Both "artificial" and "unnatural" are not technical terms. Maybe write "unnatural (polyphyletic)", and link the term so that a reader can precisely understand what you mean if needed? (unless "paraphyletic" is more appropriate). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• The sibyrhinchid iniopterygian Iniopera – that's super technical, can we remove one clade name, or reformulate?
• I suggest to collapse the tables per default; the article would look much less intimidating.
• The cladogram is very wide, does not completely fit the screen at default view; any chance to make this a bit narrower (maybe reduce font size, or add line breaks)?

All in all, a great article, and it is obvious that a lot of work went into this. It generally has the right degree of detail (apart from the examples noted), and much has already been done to ensure understandability (even though there is still room for improvement here). At places, the wording is rather complicated and could be simplified where possible. I think that, pending a few issues above, it is ready for GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I've made some changes in accordance with your feedback here, but there are some things I want to explain my reasoning for. I was specifically requested by some other editors to keep the tables displaying taxonomic schemes uncollapsed by default, since that is important enough information that care should be taken that it is not easily missed. I can make a dedicated notes section for the alternate names used for different jaw or tooth anatomical terms, but I felt that they were important to include directly in the text because the sources used swap between the terminology, and it could otherwise cause a headache for someone fact-checking. As for the tooth anatomy section (specifically regarding the names used for the different forms of dentin), multiple of the cited sources dedicate full paragraphs to specifically the topic of tooth terminology in the literature and the confusion these terms may cause. I can try to tweak the wording or organization if it comes across like a tangent, but "researchers don't have a unified naming scheme for holocephalan tooth histology" is given enough weight in the cited sources that I think it warrants a place in the article. I agree with other criticism and have tweaked the text accordingly, and will fix the duplicate sources as soon as possible. Thank you for the detailed feedback! Gasmasque (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Glad that helped! The points on collapsed tables and footnotes are not crucial; these suggestions might be raised at FAC but that should not be a problem at GAN (although a less intimidating-looking article might be quicker to attract reviewers). I already took care of the duplicates, and make some other changes you might want to check. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Ornithoprion

I'm considering submitting this article for FAC. Currently I'm focusing on making sure the citations are in order, but if anyone wants to double check some of the text as well, it would be appreciated. The article has been edited pretty heavily since its GA review a year ago, with additional sources added and some unneeded fluff trimmed out. Gasmasque (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I've submitted the article as an FAC. Gasmasque (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Great job. If you like, I can help with reference formatting. If you want me to, may I use the scripts to rename refs and move them to the bottom? Would make it much easier. Alternatively, I can also list the formatting issues here.

Sourcing

• PBDB is not a great source. Is it necessary? For what precisely are you citing it?
• mindat.org seems to be a mirror of PBDB? Is it needed?
• also, why is GBIF needed? All these are just databases.
• we need precise page numbers. I would definitely provide them for all sources that have more than 30 pages. You could use the "pages" field in the ref, or, to be more flexible if you cite that source multiple times, use <ref name=":2" />{{rp|3–9}} to cite pages 3–9 for ref 2.

Other

• The Mecca and Logan Quarry material has been dated to the Moscovian (also called Desmoinesian) stage of the Pennsylvanian – But Moscovian and Desmoinesian are not synonyms, right? It is a local (North American) stage.
• Consider collapsing "Edestoidea" in the cladogram; the cladogram is gigantic, and with collapsing that clade you would better focus on the genus, too.
• The genus name, Ornithoprion, translates literally as "bird saw" – which language? If possible, provide the original words that the name derives from.
• in his 2003 book Aquagenesis: The Origin and Evolution of Life in the Sea – providing full book titles in-text is usually considered overkill. You could instead write "in a popular book" or "in a technical book", whatever is the case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and am working on getting all of these changes implemented! The database sources (PBDB and Mindat) were included as references for the absolute dating of the Moscovian, but they can be removed without much issue. The GBIF occurrence records can similarly be scrapped, as there are academic works referencing the Excello occurrences of the genus. I will work on getting inline page numbers for the two works published in the Nobel Symposium (1967) and for Zangerl (1966). The Greek etymology was elaborated on more in the version of the article that was GA'd, but was cut down afterwards due to concerns of original research regarding etymologies for scientific names. All the source says is "...Ornithoprion, which translates as 'bird saw.' Its beak like jaws explain the 'bird' part; the 'saw' consisted of a miniature tooth-spiral located midway in the lower jaw" and I think it would be best to extrapolate as little as possible from that. The cladogram has been modified to take up much less space, also.

Some help with formatting would definitely be appreciated! I usually use visual editor, so hopefully that hasn't caused too much of a mess under the hood. Gasmasque (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Orvig, Tor; Nobel Symposium, eds. (1968)." – unsure what to do with this source. Need to cite the chapter and the chapter author, but your page range does not seem to align with a particular chapter. Also, "Nobel Symposium" is not an editor. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Make sure to link all technical terms at first mention, and explain the important ones. Unlinked are, for example, transgression, fissile, cephalopod, invertebrates, taxon, paper, and more. Terms important for understanding the text, such as "durophage" and "holotype", have to be explained, especially in the lead.
• The known postcrania of Ornithoprion encompasses – singular/plural mismatch

I went through the references. I think the last issue that needs some work is compliance with WP:MTAU; remember that as an FA, the article will appear on the main page and should be as accessible as is reasonably possible. Other than that, I think it is ready. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, and thanks for sorting out the references! I can split the 1968 source into two separate references; there are actually two back-to-back chapters by different authors being cited here (one by Bendix-Almgreen and one by Colin Patterson) and I had originally assumed it was fine to cite the book instead of the individual papers. Durophage can be reworded in the lead as "diet of shelled prey" and holotype I assume can be glossed as "name-bearing specimen"? Gasmasque (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in edited volumes, we cite the individual chapters, not the book, otherwise we cannot cite the chapter authors, and these are more important than the editors. For "holotype", I usually write "the specimen the species is based on" to be extra clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to correct any of the confused wording, and to make sure all the sources are properly written and have page numbers. I've also done a last dig through the literature and added a little bit of new information about the paleoenvironment and some of the specimens that have been discovered after the initial description. If there are any remaining unlinked, overly-technical, or otherwise unpleasant to read words or phrases here please do let me know. If anyone else wants to give the article an additional check that would be greatly appreciated too. Thank you so much for the feedback on this article, I think it's in a much better state than when it was first GA nominated! Gasmasque (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Ceoptera

Dropping this here as a pass before putting it through GA review. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think we have classical WP:Peacock issues: its discovery is considered to be significant; The discovery was considered significant; the Kilmalaug specimen was considered to be important to pterosaur research; The discovery of Ceoptera and other darwinopterans around the world is considered to be important evidence of the success of the group. That's persuasive writing and not how we should write in Wikipedia; we should rather provide the facts and let the reader reach their own conclusion. These fillers do not really add anything. Also, if we need a sentence that evaluates the relative importance of this taxon, we obviously need a secondary source for that (the species description is biased in this regard). Instead, try to write fact-based, something like "The early evolution of pterosaurs is poorly known … Ceoptera is one of only few pterosaur specimens from the Middle Jurassic", and based on this, the reader should be able to decide whether it's important or not.
• a group intermediate between early rhamphorhynchoid and later pterodactyloid pterosaurs – that's ambiguous: A group intermediate between early rhamphorhynchoids and pterodactyloids could be "late rhamphorhynchoids".
• Will have a look at the rest when time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Sinocephale

Dropping this here as a pass before putting it through GA review. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• something followed by later authors – do you mean "followed by some later authors"?

  Fixed by Junsik.

• The "92 Ma" in the taxonbox is unsourced and not repeated in the text.

  Ah, a misreading of the paper on my part. It says "post 92ma" but I misinterpreted that as "92 ma". Junsik has fixed this and put a note in the text.

• being given a unique generic name – to make the article more comprehensible for a lay person, I would avoid yet another technical term and instead write "being given its own genus, Sinocephale" or something.

  Fixed by Junsik.

• In default desktop layout, the cladogram is cut off. You could move the Zavacephale picture somewhere else to solve that.

  I've gone and removed the Zavacephale, as it was mostly just space filler.

• and narrowing to the small region – can't follow here; what small region?

  This is referring to the back part of the parietal that forms the parietosquamosal shelf, but I agree it's ambiguous. Reworded slightly.

• "parietosquamosal shelf" and "posterior shelf", is that the same thing? If so, you say the posterior shelf is not distinct, but apparently there was some sort of shelf?

  Ah, I see how this is confusing. "Posterior shelf" is being used by the paper to refer to the undomed back of the skull. In some taxa, the dome goes all the way to the rim of the parietosquamosal shelf, whereas in others like Stegoceras the dome leaves some room behind it. The terminology is somewhat interchangeable in the literature, so it can be confusing. I've reworded it to avoid the term "posterior shelf" altogether.

• primitive – better avoid and say "basal (early-diverging)"

  Fixed by Junsik; I've added the link.

• In The Dinosauria David Weishampel ascribed the rocks to the Minhe Formation – We have an article on The Dinosauria which you could link to, and also say it's an encylopedia, and provide the year since there are two editions. I bring this up because you refer to Weishampel but you cite Maryanska, so something is wrong here.

  Ah, I think I must have reused my existing Dinosauria reference without thinking despite citing a different section. Seems to have been fixed by Junsik.

• I see we are short on images here but the one in "Paleoecology" seems barely relevant (another taxon, another locality); how does it help the reader to understand the article?

  The Sinocephale locality is not identified in the image, but it would be somewhere within the highlighted area of China in the corner map. Maybe could use a better caption?

If it's just for the locality, you could also use a simple location map (such as the one in Ulansuhai Formation). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• wp:engvar is inconsistent; what spelling variant are you aiming for?

  I am quite bad with English consistency... given Stegoceras uses Canadian English, and Sinocephale was redescribed by a Canadian palaeontologist through a Canadian institution in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Canadian English would seem most appropriate. I've adjusted the ones that stand out to me, but might need help identifying any others.

In that case, you could place {{Canadian English}} on the talk page and {{Use Canadian English|date=November 2025}} to the top of the article to make this clear (as it is not obvious) and to stop editors from changing it back and forth. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Specify language for the etymology? (should be Gr. kephale "head")

  Fixed by Junsik.

• Very nicely written overall, I just have a few minor quibbles after a quick read-over. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Junsik1223 has, helpfully, dealt with some of these for me. Responding here to the rest. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)