# Talk:Echinodon

This review is transcluded from Talk:Echinodon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JurassicClassic767 (talk · contribs) 14:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually willing to review this article, considering it's my first review. The overall article is pretty interesting to be honest, though several commas lack, and it might a bit confusing to read. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Lead section:

"The first specimens of jaw bones were named Echinodon becklesii..." This may state that more jaw bones were discovered afterwards, but only additional teeth were discovered, so maybe reword to "The first specimens were jaw bones which were named Echinodon becklesii..." so it doesn't confuse readers.
Done
"The species name honours collector Samuel Beckles who discovered..." -> "The specific name honours collector Samuel Beckles who discovered..." It may be the same statement, but putting "specific" is more precise.
Done
(comma): "Originally, Echinodon was considered..."
Done
"Echinodon was then later referred to a family of early ornithischians called Fabrosauridae, which was then afterwards identified as an artificial group..."
Reworded but not exactly like here
"that the Purbeck Group was a variably lagoonal environment that was initially similar to the modern Mediterranean, initially but became wetter over time."
Done
History of discovery:

"were found alongside shells and plant fossils in the Purbeck Beds, which were first described in a monograph published in 1861 written by Sir Richard Owen, a british British palaeontologist who also..."
Rewrote that sentence but not exactly like here
"where he grouped Echinodon with Scelidosaurus and Iguanodon in a clade of Dinosauria he termed Prionodontia" -> "where he grouped Echinodon with Scelidosaurus and Iguanodon in a clade that he called Prionodontia, which was within the larger clade Dinosauria" It's actually more understandable this way.
Done
"were approximately 150.2-150.3 million years old, and were initially were described as intermediate fabrosaur..." also consider reversing the age from older to younger (150.3-150.2)
Done
"which was supported by Galton in 2002 until 2006 when Galton reconsidered the material and noticed differences in tooth anatomy from Echinodon proper." -> "which was supported by Galton from 2002 until 2006, but when Galton reconsidered the material, he noticed differences in tooth anatomy from Echinodon proper."
Reworded but nor exactly like here
Description:

"the skull of Echinodon would have been 62 mm (2.4 in) long, comparable to Tianyulong at 66 mm (2.6 in) but less than adults of Fruitadens at 75 mm (3.0 in) long" -> "the skull of Echinodon would have been 62 mm (2.4 in) long, which is comparable to Tianyulong at 66 mm (2.6 in), but less than adult Fruitadens, which reach 75 mm (3.0 in) long"
Done
"A premaxillary foramen is present near close to the anterior margin of the individual bone, and the fossa it that is nested within is more similar to Heterodontosaurus than the more derived Hypsilophodon"
Done the first bit, but not the second because the foramen is within the fossa not the other way around. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
"specialized specialised in comparison to most ornithischians. While specialized specialised anterior teeth..." This is not really an issue, but since you stated that the article is written in British, I'd recommend changing it.
Done
The rest of the Description section is well-structured to be honest, so we'll move on to Classification next. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Classification:

"close to Jurassic Laosaurus and Nanosaurus, and more primitive than Cretaceous Hypsilophodon, Parksosaurus and Thescelosaurus" Maybe specify? Say "genera" for example -> "close to the Jurassic genera Laosaurus and Nanosaurus, and more primitive than the Cretaceous genera Hypsilophodon, Parksosaurus and Thescelosaurus"
Done
(image caption of Nuthetes; possible comma needed):"Echinodon being attacked by a Nuthetes, hypothetically restored as a dromaeosaur"
Done
Looks like the rest of the Classification section sits well, and the references suit what says in the text, so we'll move on to Paleobiology next. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Paleobiology:

(comma):"The anatomy of Echinodon and other heterodontosaurids is poorly known, meaning that most palaeobiological..."
Done
(commas):"The Cinder Beds has, at times, been considered the Jurassic-Cretaceous Boundary..."
Done
"result in the entire Lulworth Formation being latest Jurassic, Tithonian, in age." -> "result in the entire Lulworth Formation being latest Jurassic, Tithonian stage, in age."
I don't think this is necessary or grammatically correct
"with the Lulworth Formation early Berriasian" -> "with the Lulworth Formation being early Berriasian"
Done
"and is one of few Berriasian deopsits deposits globally..."
Done
"but is limited to cranial and dental material, and as well as tracks." There's more word variation this way.
Reworded in a different way
consider linking "lepidosaurians"
Done
Nuthetes should be specified as to where it is in the image caption of the Purbeck beds.
I think this is unnecessary as there is only one theropod in the image
When the paleobiology section finished, we should be finishing the review. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I've read the whole article again, and seems that it suits the criteria. The references cite the content they need to cite, so that's taken care of. The paragraphs are well-structured, so that's also taken care of. Everything else is also understandable.
Well, seems like the result of the review is:. Congratulations and good job! Time to give this a pass then. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)