Talk:Cetiosauriscus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Review is coming. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I fear here is still a lot of work to do before reaching GA. This dinosaur is poorly known, and little has been published. This means that it is absolutely necessary to include most if not all of the few studies that have been published. There are important studies that are not included yet, so the article is partly outdated.

• "C." greppini and "C." glymptonensis are not species of Cetiosauriscus, I think this is out of question. "The Dinosauria" only lists the type species, as does the taxonbox and the "Invalid species" section of the article. Schwarz et al. (one of the studies that need to be included) states that C. glymptonensis has nothing to do with C. but is basal to Titanosauria. Everytime you mention "C." greppini you have to put "C." in quotationmarks.
• Considering that only C. stewarti is a valid species, we come to a bigger problem: The fossilized cartilaginous tissue also has nothing to do with Cetiosauriscus because it was discovered on C. greppini fossils; therefore it is out of place in the section "Description", since this section is supposed to describe Cetiosauriscus only.
• same for the bite marks in Paleoecology
• possible solution: move that information to the Invalid species section, that should be greatly expanded to provide abundant information about the other species as well.
• Most of "Discovery and naming" is sourced with Charig (1993), but I cannot find most of this information in that source. You even write "This was done in 1995" but use the 1993 paper as the source.
• Metacarpal 1 is short and massive, with the prominent process on the lower part of the posterior margin of the lateral face, a characteristic of the diplodocoids Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, Cetiosauriscus and Dicraeosaurus – I cannot find this in the source.
• The section "Vertebra" (shouldn't it be "Vertebrae"?) reads like random information from an detailed osteological paper. Why are these anatomical details notable, and everything else not? What vertebrae are described? Cervicals, Dorsals, Caudals? I mean, the holotype of C. is a pelvis if I recall correctly (that information should also be included). But there are only the sections "Vertebra" and "Limbs".
• It differs from Barosaurus in having a less complex sculpting laterally and ventrally in the caudals; in having a smaller humerus-femur ratio; and in having differently developed chevrons.[7] – again, I can not find this in the cited source!
• Cetiosauriscus is diagnosed by axially concave summits on the cranial and middle caudal neural spines.[2] – You cite von Huene (1927) here. He mentioned quite a lot of characters, but not this one.
• another important study that should be included:
• there is a nice informative overview in Gluts "Encyclopedia of dinosaurs".

I have to abort the review and fail the article for now, mostly because several of the sources do not contain the cited information. I strongly encourage you to keep working on the article and resubmit it when its ready. I can also sent you the sources I mentioned (except Heathcote & Upchruch 2003, we will need to ask in the Wikiproject Resource exchange for this one). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)