# Talk:Thalattoarchon

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thalattoarchon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'll review this article. Will have comments up within a few days. Esculenta (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, here are my thoughts on the article. I think it's well written and put together, and what follows below are minor nitpicks and suggestions that should be easy to deal with. Am putting this GA candidate on hold. Esculenta (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Esculenta, i've corrected 90% of the alleged defects or shortcomings that you have criticized for the article. I will see what i will do for the rest. Amirani1746 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Amirani1746, would you be able to indicate which of my comments you haven't addressed (I may have been asking for things outside of the scope of the GA criteria anyways...), and perhaps we could finish up this review soonish. Esculenta (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
? Esculenta (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Amirani1746: any response? Esculenta (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello again Esculenta, sory for the late. The two major comments in which i have not corected is the bicarinate teeth link (I couldn't find any Wikipedia link on this subject) and the 2021 phylogenetic position of Thalattoarchon, as i find no interesting detail about this statement. Amirani1746 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think we can wrap this up soon, but there's still the problem of the lead sentence, which as currently constructed, is incorrect. Might I suggest something like "Thalattoarchon is genus containing a single extinct species of large predatory marine reptile in the order Ichthyosauria. It lived during the Anisian stage of the Middle Triassic in what is now North America." Esculenta (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure ? because, this kind of sentence i can find it in any other paleontology article. You can change it with some details, but i prefer to rest with the actual sentence. Amirani1746 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
How is it not incorrect the way it is currently written? It says it's an "extinct genus", but a genus is a human-constructed concept of classification and cannot be "extinct" in the sense it is being used here. It further says it is a genus of ichthyosaurs, giving it explicitly in plural form, which, in normal human prose, implies that there's more than one. But there's only one species in this genus, so why word it in this way? Esculenta (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Esculenta i think i've corrected the proble mafter inspiration of the Besanosaurus article. Amirani1746 (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I added a comma to separate the descriptors, and changed the plural to singular (like in Besanosaurus). I think we're good to promote now. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Thaks for the review Esculenta. Amirani1746 (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Lead

"Thalattoarchon is an extinct genus of large predatory ichthyosaurs that lived during the Anisian stage of the Middle Triassic in what is now North America." Some problems with this lead sentence: the genus isn't extinct, the taxon is; says it's a genus of ichthyosaurs, but there's only a single species; North America should not be wikilinked. For this last point, please see WP:OL; there's others examples of overlinking in the article text,  examples: United States, helicopter, truck, head, tail, teeth, skeleton, human
there's some MOS:SEAOFBLUE violations in the lead, which doesn't bother me particularly much, but it is in the MoS, so I'm obliged to point it out. I suggest that in the triply linked "basal family Cymbospondylidae", the second link is low value and could be removed.
"its size being estimated" suggest to check out this for ways to avoid the clumsy -ing construction (there are other "being" examples in the article too)
consider including non-breaking spaces (or nowrap templates) in short-form binomials to eliminate unsightly line breaks
Discovery and naming

"The only known specimen of Thalattoarchon"
"The recovered material where transported" where->was
the source says that specimen PR 3032 contains "parts of the hind fins", whereas the article says "rear swimming paddles". I'm assuming these are equivalent? Don't "fins" usually lack the bone structure that "flippers" or "paddles" might imply?
"It was in 2013 that this specimen was designated as the holotype of a new genus and species of ichthyosaurs by Nadia B. Fröbisch and colleagues," maybe somewhere in the article the names of the other 3 authors could be mentioned … doesn't seem right that the others who also worked on this discovery aren't even mentioned anywhere.
"The species name also comes from Ancient Greek…" I was taught that "species name" is a specific term of art used in ICNafp, whereas "specific name" (or specific epithet or species epithet) was used in the ICZN. Out article on Specific name (zoology) also doesn't give "species name" as a synonym (although it confusingly uses "species name" in the article text!)
for best practices, the Greek text should be enclosed in Template:lang templates
Description

"but unlike the more derived representatives" "derived" is jargony here and confusing to the reader that isn't aware of the other phylogenetic meaning the word has
"The size of the skull being estimated at 1.2 meters (3.9 ft) long." sentence fragment
the phrase "only known" (specimen, teeth) repeats itself enough times to become noticeable
"there is a small sagittal crest which takes" which->that
unlinked/undefined jargon: anteromedial, medially, dentary bone, dentition, anteroposterior, neural spine, articular facets
"it is estimated that it would have had at least 60 presacral column." -> "have had at least 60 in the presacral column." also, column should be linked earlier
"but its articulations with the sacral ribs may have rather weak," missing word?
"Another preserved bone is interpreted as a zeugopodial element" I think it's better to have a parenthetical gloss for this jargon rather than making reader leave the site to find the meaning.
"In 2017, Benjamin C. Moon ran a variety of analyses, in which Thalattoarchon was recovered in a variety of positions, namely being more closely related to later ichthyosaurs, earlier-branching than Cymbospondylus, or the sister taxon of C. nichollsi." The study was published in 2017, but we shouldn't assume that's when Ben ran these analyses, so I suggest something like "In a study published in 2017, Benjamin C. Moon presented various analyses that yielded different phylogenetic positions for Thalattoarchon. These positions varied, indicating that Thalattoarchon might be more closely related to later-evolving ichthyosaurs, situated earlier in the lineage than Cymbospondylus, or classified as the sister taxon to C. nichollsi."
So Thalattoarchon saurophagis is sister to Shastasauridae … might it be worthwhile to add a few words summarizing the morphological differences between the two?
Paleobiology

"Due to its bicarinate, cuting teeth" link/explain bicarinate and fix typo
"In 2021, Sander and his colleagues suggest that if Thalattoarchon would have feed on Cymbospondylus," suggest -> suggested; feed->fed
link pack hunter
Palaeoecology

link outcrop
"more than 300 m wide" needs convert
"bivalves of the Halobiidae family." -> "bivalves of the family Halobiidae."
"The fossils found show that the rock unit was once a pelagic ecosystem with a stable food web." I don't understand what "rock unit" refers to here; link pelagic, food web
add Category:Fossil taxa described in 2013?
all three images have suitable licensing and captions
I've spot checked some of the citations for source-text compliance and did not find any issues.