Talk:Carsosaurus/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77[edit]

You should state it's a mosasaur Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I think it's good enough to say skin instead of epidermal in the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Instead of varanid, you can say monitor lizard Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"According to the Paleobiology Database, C. marchesetti remains the only identified species of the genus" you don't need to include this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed
"anterior cervical vertebrae" you should specify which cervicals are unknown, and mention this is in the neck Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned further down, but I added more detail. I also added your second suggestion.
Mention caudal vertebrae are in the tail Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
You can't use convert templates inside parentheses because they display the conversion inside parentheses, so you end up with double parentheses Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
"due to the its post-cranial features" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"researchers proposed that" surely they have names Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added names.

Dunkleosteus77, I've replied to your comments. Is it better now? An anonymous username, not my real name 21:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check google scholar if you can find more relevant sources. I found https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1796 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used that both that one and another I just dug up. It should feel a little more fleshed out now. There are a few passing mentions of Carsosaurus in other sources, but they don't provide any new information. The exact taxonomy is still largely unclear. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Komensaurus belongs in Paleoecology, the section which should include creature Carsosaurus lived alongside Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but that source's mention of Carsosaurus focuses heavily on its murky taxonomic status, so it seems most logical to include it here, especially since there it doesn't go as far as to say they lived at the same time.

The only part of the mention of Komensosaurus in the article relevant to Classification is "Carsosaurus has been a nomen dubium since its description." The Komensosaurus paper has a detailed classification history of aigialosaurs, including Carsosaurus, which I think should be incorporated here. Komensosaurus and Carsosaurus both lived in Cenomanian Slovenia so that would make them coeval. Paleoecology should give us a general background of the world of Carsosaurus (ie Cenomanian–Turonian Slovenia), including creatures it would've likely come into contact with, but do make note if they do not come from the same formation Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of the section about classification history mentions Carsosaurus specifically, and it would probably be more appropriate in other articles. I did do the other thing you mentioned.

The only thing you should really be saying about Komensosaurus in paleoecology is that they are both aigialosaurids found on the Karst Plateau during the Cenomanian, not how similar they are. Also, is there no other creature from this area and time? No fishes, sharks, other reptiles, crustaceans, plants? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking a minute, but your two comments appear to contradict each other. I have included the full original line in classification because the fact that they are from the same area and time period is part of their similarities and relative to the confusion surrounding classification, but I've also kept a brief mention in paleoecology. Furthermore, I have listed other species from the area and time.

Komensosaurus shouldn't be in the Classification section as you can say the exact same thing about any other aigialosaurid. It's quite self-evident that the describes of Komensosaurus concluded their taxon is similar to Carsosaurus hence they classified it as an aigialosaurid, and that it is different than Carsosaurus hence it is its own genus Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your point. I hope it's okay now.

"allowing their evolution into massive, fully aquatic mosasaurs" I think you should add when this happened for context Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Hey, @Dunkleosteus77:, it's been a little while, so I'm pinging you in case you didn't notice my comments. An anonymous username, not my real name 18:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been really busy this week, I'll see if I can continue tomorrow Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I understand. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]