# Talk:Megacephalosaurus

Hi Macrophyseter, nice job with the article, I just noticed I have no idea what the original source of the photo of the holotype skull is that I uploaded here back in 2008 before I had a very good grasp at copyright laws, and the credit to Williston is of course bogus, as he died in 1918. So I'm afraid the photo has to be nominated for deletion, unless you know another old source it is used in that may be public domain? FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Oceans of Kansas website appears to be the original source of any version of that photo in the internet, which indicates that the original photo could possibly be in the possession of the Sternberg Museum. I'm not exactly sure how you got to the conclusion that the photo is dated 1952; based on my research it could have been taken any time between its first mounting in 1950 or 1951 and until black-and-white photography became obsolete. If we can identify who took those photos and what the person did with it, it is possible that it could be considered public domain on the grounds of no copyright renewal. The best case here would be to try reaching out to Mike Everhart or another curator at the Sternberg Museum.
There are a couple of other historical photos including its excavation and its exhibit debut which can be found in Schumacher et al. (2013) that are dated 1950 and 1951 respectively, but it seems that the paper represents the first-ever time those photos were uploaded on the internet. Moreover, its also possible that T&F may have taken a copyright of the photos for themselves as they published the paper that has the photos in it. Again, we could contact one of the authors (Everhart, Schumacher, Carpenter) regarding details of the photo and possibly consider it public domain on the same grounds.
I have been unable to find any free alternatives. The closest I have found was a really good photo of the holotype skull as extracted from the mount, but it is licensed as a Non-Commercial CC 4.0 so we can't use it as a free image. But if it's possible, we could try declaring non-free use for that image. Alternatively, Triebold Paleontology has a photo of a cast of the holotype skull. Assuming that MCDinosaurhunter is a representative of the company, we could ask if the user can release the photo under a CC license. Macrophyseter | talk 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
That page also looked quite different back when I uploaded the image[1], with different identities for the specimens, so I was probably confused. I just tried to make up for it by adding some PD images to the Brachauchenius page (where that photo was originally added to), but I saw now that you've already uploaded recent photos of the specimens... Maybe they are ok for historical purposes. I think I'll have to request deletion of the current taxobox image here, unfortunately... FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Damn, the very moment I pressed the submit button for an edit to the Brachauchenius article with my new uploads I got an edit conflict with your edit that added older drawings of the exact same specimens in the exact same formats I intended, what an intriguing coincidence. I have already replaced the images by the time I saw your response on this talk page, and I feel about "undoing" your efforts the very moment you made them. However, your uploads can still be of use as historical images for a future research history section that can be made in that article. In fact, Brachauchenius is in my bucket list of what to do next, although I have exams next Monday and may not be able to draft anything until they are finished.
Back on the main topic, I can't find any contacts for Mike Everhart or Carpenter, but I found an email attributed to Bruce Schumacher and a paleoart search shows me that he has been active in advising paleoartists in their restorations. I could try contacting him for information on the photo and/or if he may be able to CC-release other photos of the holotype instead if I have the time. Macrophyseter | talk 08:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Haha, weird, and I wonder why I didn't find and upload those images years ago anyway... I have DRed the holotype skull image, and well, fingers crossed for getting a new one. If we can't get it, there probably will be a photo published in a free journal down the line. The reconstructed skull could be used instead for now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, I think you could throw in one of the new Brachauchenius images here for comparison. And if you go for FAC, you could request a life restoration and size comparison of Megacephalosaurus at WP:paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I have sent an email to Dr. Bruce A. Schumacher (lead author of Schumacher et al., 2013) asking about the copyright status of two images taken during the early 1950s (a photo of the holotype's excavation and a photo of its first mounting). Apparently the only email pertaining to him that I could find was his federal service email, which means that it is possible that he may not respond if the Forest Service Agency has suspended work due to the coronavirus. I haven't found a conclusive email to Mike Everhart, but there is a possible email address on his Oceans of Kansas website ("mike at oceansofkansas.com"). I've sent an email to that address regarding the status of the DRed imaged, but there may be no response since it may either be nonexistent or no longer maintained.
I personally think that throwing in pictures of the Brachauchenius fossils would be a bad idea if we can't pair them with images of FHSM VP-321, as it would just make the focus more confusing. If things go to the worst, we may have to try having a non-free rationale if possible. Macrophyseter | talk 20:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, I'd think the opposite, because subtle differences that distinguish closely related taxa wouldn't really be visible in life restorations, only in fossils, so they would be even easier to confuse for the same taxon. Anyway, whoever writes decides! FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I've recieved replies from both contacts. Everhart explained a bit on the copyright details of your old upload, stating that the photograph was likely taken during the 1950s by George F. Sternberg but the copyright was likely transferred to Fort Hays State University upon his passing in 1969. Regardless of who took it, Everhart stated that the original photo in the collections of the Sternberg Museum. The photo appeared on the Oceans of Kansas website by explicit permission by the University, indicating that they have copyright ownership of it. Schumacher told me that the Sternberg Museum also holds the two other images I talked about earlier and that he and his colleagues were able to put them in the paper by explicit permission by the Museum. HOWEVER, Everhart also offered to supply an old photo of FHSM VP-321 he took himself. I've sent him the process on OTRS, but it will be his decision if he wants to submit it or not.Macrophyseter | talk 23:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
That was quick! Yeah, even if it isn't a great quality photo, it's better than nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Megacephalosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aven13 (talk · contribs) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'll review this article.
From a first look-through, good job. The article seems thorough and comprehensive. I have only a few minor fixes and then we should be able to promote to GA.

In the lead; "by 2013 it has been understood". Grammar issues.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"consistently sized teeth suggests that it may have preferred a diet". You don't need the may here; "suggests that it preferred a diet" is fine.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"Megacephalosaurus was one of the largest marine reptiles of its time and its estimated length measures between 6–9 meters (20–30 ft)". Connect these two sentences; say that "Megacephalosaurus was one of the largest marine reptiles of its time with an estimated measure of 6–9 meters (20–30 ft)" (or something similar).
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"Remains are mostly represented by fossil skulls". In the lead section, since there aren't that many specimens, is it possible to simply say "Remains are represented by two fossil skulls, three ribs, and a neural arch"?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
In the paragraph under "description" beginning with "The snout is very elongate", you have an extremely long paragraph with only two sources at the end. I it possible to split up the inline citations through the paragraph?
Wouldn't be pretty. Each sentence in that paragraph would be cited by both sources (one source makes the main points and the other elaborates on some or all of it). Otherwise, I would be making citations for every single point. Macrophyseter | talk
Fair enough.
"and it has previously been thought". This sentence is technically correct, but it isn't worded very well. Something like "it was previously thought" or even just "it was thought" would be better.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"was discovered two teenage brothers". Needs a "by".
Now how did that happen? Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The "initial identification" subsection lacks any inline citations. I know that adding them in isn't exactly fun, but there should at least be a source that says that two boys discovered the fossil. There are many of them out there, like this.
It was supposed to be cited by ref number 2; somehow I didn't put the citation in. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"The history of the paratype skull UNSM 50136 has been unclear when it was first examined" replace with "was unclear when it was first examined".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
In the evolutionary tree, you should red link 'Pliosaurus' andrewsi and 'Pliosaurus' irgisensis (remember: red links are not only acceptable, but needed), and for the other links, make it so that it redirects you to the section of the pliosaurus article with that actual species.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Link "polycotylids".
I already linked polycotylid before (in front of Trinacromerum), wouldn't that make it a double wiki-link? Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad.
And on the talk page, FunkMonk makes a good point. I'm aware that you didn't upload the image, but another source needs to be found if the photo is to be used. (Of course, other photos may be used in the intro too, it's just that one photo.)
I'll try looking into it. However, it should be noted that the other skull image in the article is the only other free image of a Megacephalosaurus I can find. I'll discuss this more in FunkMonk's thread. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Macrophyseter: That's all I have for now. Nice job. Aven13 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! A quick question, do you think an article of content (not quality, as that can always be improved) like this may have any sort of chance at passing FA? Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, as long as you're willing to put in the work. You know by bringing Cretoxyrhina to FA that it is an extremely difficult task, but as far as I can tell, the content of this article would be just fine for FA. The only thing standing in your way right now would probably be a lack of citations, but those are easy enough to add, and you don't need too many - an article like Oxalaia only has 27 citations, so if you feel that you can get it up to FA, go for it.
Do you mean citations as in the sheer number of sources in the refs, given your example for the Oxalaia article? That could be a bit of a slope there, to be honest considering that there are only a few papers that mentions Megacephalosaurus and fewer papers that focus on it. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a few more things to go, then GA.

"The cladogram below is modified from the majority rule consensus tree of an ordered parsimony analysis from a multi-method phylogenetic study by Madzia et al. (2018)". This sentence is rather convoluted and technical - terms like "ordered parsimony analysis" and "majority rule consensus tree" can be taken out to make the sentence more readable.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"one uniting characteristic between all is known; this characteristic being the possession of..." This can be shortened to "one uniting characteristic is known; the possession of..."
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"All strict consensus methods recovered Megacephalosaurus from a polytomy clade that only shared by..." should be "that is" or just "clade only shared by".
I'm wondering why I am having so many typos. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"was performed by a 2012 study led by Roger Benson". Probably should change to "performed in a 2012 study."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Macrophyseter: And that's all I have. After these are done and the image is sorted out, the article should be ready to promote. Aven13 20:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The image part might take a while. I'll see if I can try reaching out to one of the authors of the taxon for information. If they don't respond, it's possible that we may have to throw in a non-fair use rationale (if possible) or delete it outright and only use the reconstructed skull image. I don't think any other free images exist yet.Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Aven13: I have decided to purge the image from the article and replaced the taxobox image with the reconstructed skull. Do you think that there is still enough images to satisfy GA criteria? Macrophyseter | talk 20:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. As I cannot see any further things that need fixing within the article...


### Conclusion
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: The only part of this review I'm slightly hesitant about, article contains relatively few inline citations. However it is good enough for GA, so it's good enough for me.
C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
 Pass. Nice job on promoting another paleontology-related article to GA. Aven13 23:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the review! Macrophyseter | talk 23:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Megacephalosaurus eulerti.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)