# Talk:Glacialisaurus

As a c;ose relative of Lufengosaurus should it not be placed in the same family Plateosauridae?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.39.238 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

Actually, both should be in Massospondylidae (for the time being). J. Spencer (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Until the next paper comes out with a completely different analysis on early sauropodomorphs... ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Where i can found information about that true Sauropods?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yewtharaptor (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glacialisaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright thank you. I am on vacation currently but will be able to implement needed changes when I get back, probably on the 26th. In the meantime, editing on mobile isn’t properly working and prohibits me from fixing the page. Sorry about this delay but as soon as I am available I will work on the article. Augustios Paleo (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Augustios Paleo: Still interested in this review? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes Augustios Paleo (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Augustios Paleo Great to hear. You can go ahead and start on the suggestions I've made so far while I look at the rest of the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks like this was abandoned by the nominator, I'll see if I can find a replacement. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535, I will try to take this over, and begin fixing issues soonish. Augustios Paleo has expressed that they won't be returning to their current GANs. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@FunkMonk Thanks for taking it over! Once you've checked off the comments I've made so far (some of which Augustus might have already addressed) I'll start on  the rest of the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535, everything listed below should now be addressed, but I think I need to look the entire article over myself before you read on to make sure it's up to snuff. I'll ping you when I'm done.  FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535, I had wanted to fix this to FAC standard before pinging you, but I realised a lot more work would have to be done for that (hence the long wait), so I've now mainly fixed issues that I think would reach the GA criteria,and it should be ready for you to look over. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I've added some general comments below. There are some issues with overly detailed prose and possible original research that need correcting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Agree, I had already removed some stuff verging on WP:synth and superfluous detail. Will ping you when the rest is addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535, should be ready for you to have a further look. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


### Infobox and lede
This appears to be an issue with the infobox template and not this specific article, but the arrow pointing to the time period is so small that it's difficult to notice.
Not much we can do about it here, could be brought up at the Tree of Life project. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The cite in the infobox is not used elsewhere in the article - why?
Seems to have been removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
In the sentence beginning It is known only, the specimen numbers are not needed, and there's a missing "and"
Seems to have been fixed, and I removed "only", as it means nothing in this context. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hammer is introduced twice in the first paragraph
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADCITE, the citations aren't really needed in the lede, since they're used for the same material in the prose
Seems to have been removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
"Is" and "was" are awkwardly mixed, especially in the final sentence of the lede.
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


### Discovery and naming
The fossils consisted of two different individuals → The fossils were from two different individuals
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
had been found → were found
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The rest of the prose indicates it was a single site, but the sentence beginning The fossils had been found... makes it sounds like there were two sites
Seems to have been fixed.
of circa 4,100 meters high → of about 4,100 meters
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Use {{convert}} for all measurements
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
What does "referred to" mean in this context?
Seems it has been changed, but it would mean the same as "assigned". FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
"erected" is definitely not the correct word here.
Seems to have been changed, thought "erected" is sometimes used for the coinage of taxonomic names. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
FMNH PR1823 is mentioned as being the holotype twice; the first mention is unnecessary. Wikilink holotype.
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
No need to wikilink Hammer twice in this paragraph. Make sure to be consistent whether his middle initial is used.
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


### Description
Wikilink plateosaurids
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
There is far too much detail in the leg bones section; it should be reduced to 1-2 paragraphs. This article should be about the species as a whole; the preservation details of the fossils is not terribly important.
Moved some of the preservation info to the discovery section where it belongs, will try to simplify and shorten the rest. Particularly the anatomical terms of direction need to be "translated", they're incomprehensible to most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I've translated and simplified some terms, and as stated above, moved info about preservation to the discovery section. But I'm not sure I agree this could be condensed to just two paragraphs without losing valuable info. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm willing to be flexible on other points, since you are vastly more experienced in this topic are than I am, but this is a significant issue of Wikipedia not being a scientific journal. This entire section is written both in the condensed style and detail level of a journal article; it is both unreadable for the intended audience (literate but non-expert) and contains far too much detail for an encyclopedia. (The fact that the four paragraphs are cited entirely to the discovery announcement is a symptom of this.) The paragraph about the feet of Diplodocus is a good example of what these four paragraphs should be condensed to. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree style-wise, but I think it's more a matter of making another pass at "translating" the text and snipping some irrelevant stuff than cutting it down wholesale, which I'll attempt if you agree with that. But note that Diplodocus is among the earliest dinosaur FAs (from 2007), from a time when the FA criteria were much laxer, and it would most likely not pass today (compare the level of detail with more recent FAs about scrappily known dinosaurs like Argentinosaurus or Paranthodon). FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I see several big differences with Argentinosaurus and Paranthodon versus this article. For one, there's actually enough source material to justify the level of detail provided, since it's discussed in multiple sources. Two, the details are contextualized. A paragraph that begins with [b]ecause of their incomplete preservation, the original position of the known dorsal vertebrae within the vertebral column is disputed has a reason to go into smaller details, while this article just gives tedious description without any indication why it's important. Three, they're written as an encyclopedia with a degree of narrative, not as a journal paper that presents a lot of facts in short order. Those other two articles use as little jargon as possible (and wikilink or explain it as needed); this article is full of jargon and is literally unintelligible by anyone but paleontologists.
I know it's a lot of work, but I would recommend rewriting this section from scratch. Read through the available sources, and write 1-2 paragraphs of encyclopedic text. It's often easier to craft your own words than to edit it from a wildly different style. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I would have rewritten it or significantly altered it if it wasn't already at GAN when I joined, and while it can be done, since I have limited time, it will take a while if that's ok. Alternatively, I can also cut out large chunks if you have an indication of which part you find unnecessary for now, and then I will see if I can rework it later. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
In all honesty, the quickest way to get the article to GA quality would be to simply remove the entire leg bones section for now. The single paragraph under "Description" is perfectly adequate for the broad coverage required by WP:GACR; there's nothing under "leg bones" that is essential for GA quality. (Note The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.) That would make the rest of the review pretty quick - the other sections mostly just need minor edits - and allow you to rework the section later (for FA, should you desire, or not) without time constraint. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Alright, during a review I'd require that at least the reader needs to know what makes this distinct from similar species, but for the sake of getting this on the move, I'll remove it for now. Will put it back in later when I start to rework it for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Now cut, Pi.1415926535. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


### Classification
What makes the discovery of Glacialisaurus important?
This is actually already stated: "The discovery of Glacialisaurus is important to the study of the early distribution of sauropod dinosaurs.[3] The presence of this primitive sauropodomorph in the Hanson Formation (which has also yielded remains attributed to true sauropods) shows that both primitive and advanced members of this lineage existed side by side in the early Jurassic Period." FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


### Paleobiology
Most of this section verges on original research. Unless there are sources that say "because Glacialsaurus is a massospondylid, it likely had these characteristics", it is inappropriate for the article to speculate based on descriptions of other dinosaurs.
Removed the section, which was based mainly on old sources published before the dinosaur was even found, and added a sentence about its general group at the end of the paleoenvironment section, "Basal sauropodomorphs like Glacialisaurus were the first very large dinosaurs and, due to their height, the first herbivores to high browse". FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Some portions of the paleoenvironment section also have this issue.
Not sure what parts that should be? It is mostly about its surroundings and geological context, which is standard for dinosaur articles. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


### Other
Use {{clear right}} and {{clear left}} to keep images from spilling over - at least the last image, which causes a lot of whitespace in the "see also" section
Added for last image, can't see issue elsewhere. I'll probably expand some text later on as I rewrite it,which will eliminate some space. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Add alt text for all images
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Add "External links" header for Commonscat, rather than having it floating in the references
Moved it up to see also instead, no reason for an entire section just for that box. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Standardize date format in references - mdy, dmy, and yyyy-mm-dd are all currently used. Any of the three is fine to standardize on.
Stuck to year. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Cite 17 has archival and retrieval parameters, but no url
Properly formatted it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Cite 20 has retrieval parameter but no url
Removed the sentence and citation, peripheral. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Cite 6 is missing some parameters like ISBN
Replaced with a more useful source that says the same. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Once this last set (mostly formatting) is done, should be ready for a pass. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look over the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Addressed the issues listed above, Pi.1415926535. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. Happy to pass this! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)