# Talk:Dinocephalosaurus

Why do people insist on putting this animal in the category of Dinosaur.  It isn't a dinosaur!

Because its name makes it sound like one...? Looks like we need a new category, ' Prehistoric reptiles'. I'll create it and then you can fill it up...The Singing Badger 18:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan.  I know lots of them.   :)  Nodosaurus
my is this page "Dinocephalosaurus orientalis", why cant it just be "Dinocephalosaurus"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammonight423 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 

Just a quirk of how the article was created.  It could certainly be moved to Dinocephalosaurus, although I'd want to check for other species of Dinocephalosaurus first. J. Spencer 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article placed in the Category:Sauropterygia? I've been thinking Dinocephalosaurus was a protorosaur... Darth Ag.Ent (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I've removed it from that category. ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: Why exactly do you think your image is better than mine? If the purpose is to show a developing organism, which I believe should be called a fetus (that is, it has bones) mine is much better. Readers can even see the fetus in the thumbnail. If you want to show the fish meal in the fossil, then go ahead and make your own emphasizing that aspect. DennisPietras (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The "fetus/embryo" distinction is completely semantics. In fact, the paper actually explicitly calls it an embryo, hence the terminology that I went with. If you have an issue with that, please take it up with the authors of the paper, not me. As for my rationale in replacing your image, the life reconstruction lacks context without the original fossil (and it highlights not just the fish, but also the embryo in (c)!). Having multiple images where one image would perfectly suffice is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. Your image also seemed to have been quite low-resolution compared to the original. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras: Wasn't your File:DinocephalosaurusFetus4TC.jpg image clipped from www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14445/figures/3? While File:DinocephalosaurusFetus4TC.jpg certainly highlighted the fetus, I do think that the complete image adds to other aspects of the article.
@Lythronaxargestes: I did make a change in the caption from embryo to fetus, as the stage of development is clearly the latter, at least according to those two articles. I think a more commonplace understanding of embryo & fetus apply here.
Peaceray (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Slightly related, I think if the article is expanded, it may be a good idea to separate the images (at least the restoration) in the taxobox compilation? I think the compilation is just a result of space limitations in Nature papers, a limitation we don't have... But I'm not too fond of the "insert" image of the embryo, leave the artwork as it was intended... FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peaceray: The latest image you added was the original research of one David Peters, whose conclusions (based on tracings of fossil photographs) have been widely rejected by the palaeontological community. I have taken the liberty of removing it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: Thank you for that correction! Would you please consider making a note about the rejection of paleontologists at commons:File talk:Dinocephalosaurus reconstruction.jpg?
Also, would you review the record that I created at wikispecies:Dinocephalosaurus?
Peaceray (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that commons:Template:Inaccurate paleoart exists, I have applied it to the image. As for the Wikispecies page, I am not fond of Linnaean taxonomy, but I suppose there are no real outstanding issues with it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dinocephalosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 05:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm gonna steal this before anyone else can get to it, or else it'll probably be stolen from me. I'll skip the lead review until the very end, so I get a sense of what would be best to summarize. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

General

The article overall looks good, it is comprehensive and descriptive enough, but I'm unsure about the page organization. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the Discovery information before the Description, like in WP:DINO articles?
I think that only makes sense if there is a dependency between the sections, which there is not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the {{speciesbox}} is preferred over {{automatic taxobox}} for monotypic genus articles
I like to use {{automatic taxobox}} to allow for the possibility of additional species, but changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Description

Not necessary, but a scale diagram would be nice :)
Yes, I agree, if only I were an artist ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"... maximum of at least ... in length" Odd grammar, maybe "... maximum length of approximately ..."
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Could probably have a little more in the description summary, about general proportions or sizes of specific ages
Discussions about proportions are currently in the subsections. Move? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Only the stuff that overlaps between subsections should be moved (neck:torso, neck:total body). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved and reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Extending on above point, maybe include the sizes of relatives as well?
Added Tanystropheus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
First sentence of Neck has the odd grammar again, redundancies of "long"
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"... not completely elongated" clarify if this means they are partially elongated or not elongated
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"Additional distinguishing features ..." distinguishing from what
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Very sparse description of a feature that seems to be very unique to Dinocephalosaurus
I don't think there's much else I can write without diving into jargon and/or excessive detail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think a general description of the vertebrae would be fine. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Added a comparison to Tanystropheus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the Skull description should be before the Neck (anatomically front to back order)
Shifted. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"long recess located" could be explained or replaced with a more descriptive word (Skull stnc. 2)
Added a brief description. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Redundancies of "nostril" in one sentence, perhaps replace the second mention with "opening" (Skull stnc. 2)
Shifted into the first part of the sentence.
"... bottom margins of the bones" At this point its unclear as to which "bones", suggest replacing with "... bottom margins of the two snout bones"
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"Several of them are fang-like" Whats the point of this if you end up listing which ones
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Tooth discussion could use comparisons (does Tanystropheus have fang teeth?)
Brief discussion added. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"peach-shaped, with a narrow front end" typo for pear? because I grow peaches and they are clearly round
No, the source says "peach". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Would be nice to introduce the terms posterior and anterior around here, it'll make wording sentences easier
Introduced and reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Very odd to group the trunk with the skull, maybe move trunk information to directly after the neck
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Not necessary, but left-aligning some images would be good, to prevent them all from being lined up on the right
Fixed. A good idea - the images now "face the text". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Discovery

I'm wondering why the two regions were separated into subsections, wouldn't a timeline format or organizing be preferable?
It's roughly in timeline order regardless. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"A second specimen, subsequently ..." grammar issue, probably "A second subsequent specimen ..."
Removed entirely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Redundancies of "published" (Panxian stnc. 6)
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The substrate description and age is more Paleoecology information
Is this normal? Wasn't an issue in past GAs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
A reference for the greek words is probably required
Removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the two issues about Panxian/Luoping discussion, I'd strongly recommend removing the subsections in Discovery with those titles. As they are currently, the article violates a guideline at WP:MOS, as there are two sections that have duplicate titles, which messes up section linking. To follow this, I would suggest either removing the subsectioning in Discovery, and transfering locality-specific information down to Paleoecology, or removing the subsections in Paleoecology and merging the most section-specific information into Discovery. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Shifted so that the Panxian reptile horizon stuff is introduced in Discovery. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Classification

The long listing of features might look better if you simply list all the references at the end of the sentence, since there are only 4
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Why not use "polyphyletic" instead of "non-monophyletic"
It has been both paraphyletic and polyphyletic. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Grammar, use the singular of "form" (Classification stnc. 8)
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I would recommend removing all but one reference to the (non-?)monophyly of Protorosauria
Any particular reason? It's supposed to show a variety of studies, not just one. Or remove all of them and just go by Ezcurra's synthesis? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd say Ezcurras synthesis would be best. This article is about Dinocephalosaurus, so we don't need all the papers just to get across the point that its not monphyletic. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Cleaned up. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
What I do when referencing papers is I put the reference in the year brackets of the paper (see Europasaurus)
Added a few like that, but I didn't change places where the date was already in the prose.
Perhaps you can cut down the second cladogram, either that or expand the first so there is less whitespace
Restricted to Protorosauria. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Paleoecology

Explanation of Lagerstätten might be good
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the use of M and H and L, especially if not all of them lived alongside Dinocephalosaurus
Removed L/M/H. Should the non-H fauna be removed entirely? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Rest of paleoecology is good beside stuff directly impacted by the lettering labels
"Aside from M. panxiensis ..." now without letters theres no indication of Barraccudasauroides being in both.
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Other

Portals and links shouldn't interrupt the reference formatting, place them after
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Comma needed to fix grammar "expansion of the throat and fang-like teeth" (Lead stnc. 4)
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
These above beside–plus I'd like a scale diagram :)–everything here is good. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
No comments on Paleobiology? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No, read through it and it seems well written (more images could be cool ;P ). All outstanding points are bolded. If you finish everything else before a scale diagram is made, I'll pass it, but keep nagging you to make one :) IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)