# Talk:Brancasaurus

Will try to work on this one next. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, it would be the first promoted plesiosaur article, which is quite an achievement in itself! FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, A-class! Well, hopefully GA isn't far-off. I'm a little more preoccupied lately but hopefully I can still work on it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The A-class/B-class/C-class system is pretty meaningless. There's no review system; it's just an assessment. I don't normally rate articles on the A/B/C scale for that reason, but the article was still rated a stub, which is clearly untrue. Best of luck on your road to FA. The article is excellent. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding paleoecology and Wegner's original description: I don't understand German, neither do I have access to these resources, so if anyone is able to contribute in this capacity please do so. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume most of the original description is redundant anyway since the new description came up? I assume it would recap most of that info? FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That's true, though I was thinking of citing claims that were made in the original description (and reiterated in the new one). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't the new paper place citations for the old paper when such claims are repeated? My German skills have deteriorated quite a bit since high school, so I probably wouldn't be of much help, but I think we have a few palaeo editors that are even native speakers. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If the citations of the old paper in the new paper would be sufficient, scratch that then.... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is this a "vital article", by the way? Even as plesiosaurs go, it's pretty obscure... Hell, even Plesiosaurus itself isn't "vital"! I suspect the user who added this has done more in a similar vein and should be checked. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brancasaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Review in progress, hopefully I can finish by Saturday. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing! I'll try to get to all comments this weekend. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Alrighty, here's how it stacks up against the GA criteria:
1. Well Written - On the whole pretty good, I could follow most of the article even though I am not a plesiosaur expert (it might be difficult, though, for someone who doesn't know much anatomy). One thing though it you use too many semicolons. It's not bad grammar but it is a little distraction. 

Removed & replaced a bunch of semicolons. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You should clarify somewhere in the description section that you're talking about the type specimen.
Added under "Skull"; should I repeat this elsewhere? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
When you are discussing limb bones in the description section, it is often not clear whether you mean singular or plural. For example, when you talk about the humerus, both are preserved, yet you discuss it in the singular.
Done (also for the limb girdles). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You use both past and present tense to describe bones in the description section. Since most of the skeleton still exists, you should describe it in present tense unless the bone in question is lost/destroyed (in which case it would be best to state that explicitly).
Switched to present tense where appropriate. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, a few of the sentences are difficult to follow:
"The edge where it meets the flat, triangular, and plate-like ischium curves inwards from the midline to each side; the corresponding edge of the ischium was similarly-shaped, forming two rounded fenestrae connected by a small, central, rhombus-shaped opening as in Futabasaurus."
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
"The small first sacral rib was directed further outwards and backwards than the other two ribs, which were larger and were directed less backwards and further downwards."
Back half seems a bit redundant, so chopped down. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
"The interclavicle was a large plate with a smooth upper surface and a bottom surface that has a prominent central groove; it also bears a small, pointed projection at its back end."
Split into two sentences, first reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Verifiable - only a couple of minor issues here:

I could not find where in Sachs et al. it stated that three is the typical count of pectoral vertebra in plesiosaurs.
Closest I could find was three or more, so removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Sachs et al. says that the glenoid cavity is "clearly concave" — I'm not sure that's the same as "very concave" as you wrote in the article.
Yes, I meant the same thing. Corrected. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Page numbers for citation #18 (Hornung 2013) would be good.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage

When you mentioned the wax endocast of its brain, I immediately wanted to know more about it (after all, fossil brains are rare). Sachs et al. doesn't say too much, but you could maybe add an extra sentence about it somewhere.
Added a brief discussion of preserved portions under "Skull". Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The Paleoecology section doesn't really mention the ecological role of Brancasaurus. What did it eat? Did it have any predators?
Not something that any of the sources I've found mentioned, but I will take a further look and see what I find. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You could use some more generic information on plesiosaur ecology if you can't find anything specific to Brancasaurus. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Added info about fish fauna & general inference about feeding habits... hope this is sufficient. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The description section is very in-depth on the holotype but doesn't address very well how it compares with other plesiosaurs. I don't think it really needs much, but people who don't know much about plesiosaurs need some context so they can understand the significance of these anatomical characteristics.
The primary obstacle to this is that the redescription doesn't do much comparison either.... but I will check the other literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, added a few comparisons from the redescription (trying to avoid the jargon-heavy trivia)... hope this is sufficient. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Neutral - no problems here
5. Stable - no problems
6. Illustrated - plenty of high-quality images. 
On the whole, I think the article is doing very well. My biggest concern is that the the discussion of the anatomy is not accessible to the general reader (see WP:TECHNICAL). Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

After looking over the GA criteria and review protocol, I realized it's not necessary for the article to comply with WP:TECHNICAL so I won't fail the nomination for that. (Sorry, I'm still new to the GA process!) Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
That being said, any recommendations on where jargon could be replaced or reduced are very much appreciated. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I've struggled a lot with that too, to be honest. I don't know of a good way to make things like this accessible to the general reader. But adding in some comparisons to other plesiosaurs does make it much more accessible to anyone with a working knowledge of skeletal anatomy. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I am putting the nomination on hold for 7 days. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you've addressed all my concerns. The article looks very good now. The writing is clear and concise, everything is cited and in the citation, the coverage leaves no hanging questions but is not too in depth. Still good on neutrality, stability, and pictures. GA passed! Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks! Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)