# Talk:Stupendemys

I have a slight issue with the line about Stupendemys being the largest turtle ever, and the explicit statement that it was larger than Archelon. This statement is based upon estimated total lengths of over 3.3m, however - Archelon has total estimated lengths of over 4m. The reduced shell of Archelon would make it's mass much less than expected for a turtle of its size, so Stupendemys, with its solid shell, may well have had the greater mass. If mass is the reason why Stupendemys is stated as being the largest, this must be stated as such, as the current statement based upon length doesn't make sense. Regardless, Stupendemys could be stated as the largest Pleurodire known.
With regards to the statement that the Arrau turtle is the largest freshwater turtle in the world, this is also inaccurate given that the giant soft-shells of the genus Pelochelys get bigger. The Arrau could be stated as the largest living Pleurodire.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsatron (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 

Also, they aren't nearly as massive as alligator snapping turtles. The Arrau might have a higher shell length, but it seems very strange to say "Largest freshwater turtle in the world" without qualifying it by pointing out there's a species that regularly weighs twice as much.  72.227.98.109 (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The size figure for Stupendemys is not "estimated total length", it is the straight-line measurement of a carapace. Straight Carapace Length (SCL) is the most common way to compare turtle size and this is the largest figure ever published. However, one Archelon specimen had a snout-to-tail length of 16 feet (~4.9 meters), and for whatever reason, there are no known measurements of SCL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.229.199 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stupendemys/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I will review this. Before I start reading in detail, may I ask you to take care of the following general points? Thanks!

The lead should be longer, providing a summary of the whole article.
Make sure the text is as comprehensible as possible. At the moment, it seems to be very technical:
First, all technical terms need a wiki link at first mention (separately in the lead and body): medial, carapace, femur and so on
Avoid technical terms, or replace with common terms, when possible and reasonable. For example: "medial" -> "inner"; "et al." -> "and colleagues"
You replaced only some of them, not it is inconsistent which is even more confusing. Try to be consistent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Explain terms that are important for understanding; e.g. "ontogenetic changes (changes that occur during growth)"
known to science – you have this three times, but "to science" seems superfluous
Please resolve the "citation needed" tag.
--Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I took care of some of the general issues mentioned here
the lead has been expanded to include a basic summary of the ontogeny and sexual dimorphism
several links to technical terms
replacement of several technical terms with easier digestible english terms (as far as my own understanding of the English translation allows)
ontogeny has been explained and linked, sexual dimorphism is linked and explained via the following text already
known to science has been removed on several occasions
citation needed has been resolved (paper was already cited, but forgotten to be included in the etymology section, my fault)
Armin Reindl (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the last two paragraph be in their own section "Palaeoenvironment", as other paleo articles do?
Nice map you did ("Middle Miocene South America"), very helpful. But please add your data source to the file description in commons, this is important.
In their 2021 publication, Cadena and colleagues inserted information of recent Stupendemys finds into the matrix of Joyce et al. (2021), consisting of 104 taxa and 268 characters, with the goal of determining Stupendemys position within pan-pleurodira – four unlinked technical terms here. I suggest to simplify a bit here to awoid some of these terms, add some explanation.
Are there any other phylogenetic analyses, or just the 2021 one? If there are, the alternative hypotheses should be briefly mentioned as well, otherwise it would be undue weight.
in 1976 by R.C. Wood – think its "Roger C. Wood".
medial – the link does not help much, use Medial (anatomy)
There are still many terms not linked, e.g., Urumaco Formation, Harvard University, Acre State, and so on.
explain "allotype" in-text?
"History and naming" – sometimes not clear what text refers to which authors (or if it refers to any study at all).
The name Stupendemys literally translates to "stupendous turtle" in reference to the animal's great size – can we have a full etymology, with the single words that comprise the genus name, and their original language?
1.145 kilos – kg? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
issues acknowledged and hopefully fixed

Paleoenvironment subsection created
source material referenced in the file description
Roger C. Wood
medial link updated
more additional links
allotype explained in text
hopefully history is clearer now
etymology split
kilos into kg
As for the phylogeny, while usually recency is not an indicator of quality, it kinda is in this case. As explained in the text, the last major study of Stupendemys, from 2020, included Caninemys material believing it to be the skull, now rendered obsolete by the 2021 paper. This means that the 2020 phylogeny is inherently flawed as it combines characters from two distinct genera not recovered particularily closely by the latest phylogeny. 
Armin Reindl (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

OK; it should be still nice to briefly mention how the genus was classified by previous studies, just to cover the history of phylogenetic classification, and to anticipate the obvious question I asked above. I would also recommend to add how Wood classified the turtle in his first description. This is kind of standard information we usually provide.
The La Victoria Formation also yielded the remains of an adult female as well as more fossils of Caninemys. – Still unclear to what study this is referring. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I added the citation for the Caninemys remains from La Victoria and included Wood's original position as well as how Stupendemys was recovered in 2020 as it was combined with Caninemys. For clarification I also highlighted Caninemys current position in text. Armin Reindl (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the history part, I was actually looking for something like "As further reported by these authors," to make clear the La Victoria stuff is still the result of that study, without the need to check the citations. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
ICZN – spell out (in addition to the abbreviation) and link?
exhibits converging lateral margins ending anteriomedially in a narrow straight edge – This is the precise wording found in the source, which in most cases is very problematic because of copyright violation. Please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. However, in this particular case, we are lucky, because the article is under a cc license, so we are allowed to copy text or do close paraphrasing if we attribute the source. To attribute, we need to have a note in the references list, see Marine sediment for an example how this would look). So I am asking that you 1) add this note and 2) double-check if there is any close paraphrasing for any of the other sources that are copyrighted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Independent of above issue, the sentence lateral margins that end anteromedially in a straight edge is too technical for a general audience. You could reformulate with "At the tip of the snout, the side margins end in a straight" or something similar. This way you would also avoid the close paraphrasing, because now it is sufficiently different from the original. So may I ask you to go through the entire description section and try to either replace, link, and/or explain, all of the technical terms? This is a requirement for a Good Article that I, as a reviewer, have to make sure is met. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable for details. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Work in progress looks good so far! Two small hints: Replacing technical terms were possible is great, but not at all costs, not if we loose much precision. For example, we should say "skull" and not "head" (it is well-known enough). If you say "nares", we either need to specify "external nares" (because there are internal nares as well, or, as a plain English alternative, "bony nostril". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Almost done now. Few last issues:

Stupendemys souzai – create a redirect?
In other articles, we group sections like "sexual dimorphism" and "Ontogeny" under the major heading "Paleobiology". Your existing "Paleobiology" section could be renamed to "Paleoecology", and could fall under "Paleobiology" as well.
I did a copy edit, please check if all is correct. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
redirect has now been created
far as I can tell the copy edits should be correct
my main reasoning for having the sections mentioned in the second point higher up was that both the ontogeny and dimorphism concerned mostly the physical description (shell shape and horns in males), but moving them down is no issue, I added a new heading for the distinct ecology section on its diet and while working on it also moved the map into a more suitable place closer to the paleoenvironment paragraph Armin Reindl (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Closing note: Promoting now, congratulations! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)