Talk:Aristonectes/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Will review now!

Lead

• and was sometimes declared as an uncertain taxon. – Do you possibly confuse "incertae sedis" with "nomen dubium"? I think the former is used when the relationships of the genus are uncertain, while the latter is used when the genus itself is uncertain.
• Subsequent revisions and discoveries carried out from the beginning of the 21st century have re-established the genus as valid. – Was it ever invalid? Note that "validity" is a technical term with a very narrow definition (for example, if something is a numen dubium, that does not mean it is invalid).
• link "ogival"?
• Aristonectes fed by mixing prey and sediment in the benthic zones – not sure what this means, can this be made more clear?
• although little conclusive can be drawn for the first hypothesis. – "although there is little support for the first hypothesis"?
• where this latter encountered – "this latter"? What does this mean?

I will try to get to the rest soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jens Lallensack and thanks for starting the review. For the first two options it is to say that Aristonectes was poorly analyzed due to its rather enigmatic anatomy for the 20th century, to the point of being declared as an Incertae sedis by Welles (1962). Aristonectes feeding is also detailled in the "feeding" chapter : This indicates that A. quiriquinensis fed in benthic zones, mixing prey and sediment at the same time. This type of feeding pattern is also documented in modern gray whales (also illustrated like this). For the two last objections, i've corrected them. -- Amirani1746 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Amirani; yes, I see that the feeding is discussed later-on in the article. But readers need to be able to understand the lead without reading the rest. So we need to explain this better. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

And as I said, then it is not an "uncertain taxon" but a "taxon of uncertain relationships" (but then, we may ask, at which level?), and that does not make it an invalid name. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack, what do you think of this new sentence for the introduction to the article? : Throughout the 20th century, Aristonectes was a rather difficult animal for scientists to analyze due to poor fossil preparation, and was sometimes declared as a taxon of uncertain placement. Subsequent revisions and discoveries carried out from the beginning of the 21st century have erected Aristonectes as the type genus of the subfamily Aristonectinae, a lineage of elasmosaurids characterized by an enlarged skull and a reduced length of the neck.

-- Amirani1746 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• and was sometimes declared as a taxon of uncertain placement – I think you don't "declare" something to be of uncertain placement. Just say "its relationships to other genera were uncertain" or similar.
• Subsequent revisions and discoveries carried out from the beginning of the 21st century have erected Aristonectes as the type genus – this is technically incorrect I would say; the erection of a genus is a nomenclatural act and therefore can per definition only be made by a single study (which would be Cabrera, 1941). Maybe write like this: "After subsequent revisions … Aristonectes is now recognised as the type genus …". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Main text, paragraph 1

• (hence the name of the specific epithet). – this is so obvious that it probably does not need to be mentioned.
• Make sure the article is as accessible as possible (avoid or explain technical terms, and at a minimum, link them), e.g. "caudal",
• The type species, Aristonectes parvidens, would have been described long before the identification of the holotype specimen. – I you make such a mysterious statement you should explain it right there! I think it is very confusing.
• Quiriquina Island is also the place of discovery of the second known species of the genus, A. quiriquinensis – so you are introducing the first discovery of Aristonectes, without saying when, and by whom, this discovery was made? Who named it, what does the name mean? (edit: I now see this one is discussed much later, so I would suggest to remove this here because it is really misleading and confusing)
• In a book published in 1889, Richard Lydekker attributes this species to the genus Cimoliosaurus. – I assume this is still about A. quiriquinensis? How can it be Aristonectes in any case when that genus was named much later? (edit: it seems to be about P. chilensis but this is far from clear)
• this species – You have several subsequent sentences stating "this species". This needs some language tweek (e.g., replace some of them with "it").
• in the origin locality – "the same locality" maybe?
• nominally reclassifies 'P. chilensis' under its original name – I do not understand what you are trying to say.
• attributed to this latter to the new taxon named. – I don't understand this sentence.
• Also in the article, he considers that the fossil material attributed to 'P. chilensis' could come from elasmosaurids – This formulation feels a bit off. And when you mention that he considered the specimen as a elasmosaurid, you should also mention as what these specimens have been classified before.
• In 1949, Edwin H. Colbert considered the holotype specimen of 'P. chilensis' belongs to a pliosauroid, – grammar ("considered as" or "found that it belongs" or similar).
• However, since the identity of this specimen is based on only a single isolated fossil – I can't follow, what does this mean?
• A. cf. parvidens – cf. should not be in italics, right?

@Amirani1746: Ok, this was the first paragraph of the "Research history". I made a number of smaller edits directly myself. The article seems complete, but I think we are quite far away from reaching Good Article criterion 1: Well-written. This first paragrah has multiple grammar issues, the language needs to be improved, the succession and organisation of information needs to be improved. To be honest, I could not really follow this paragraph. Some sentences (including the first) I still do not understand after several reads. It would be a long review, as we would need to walk through it paragraph by paragraph, and I would ask you to watch out for the problems we already discussed in the remaining paragraphs before I read them. Let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Jens Lallensack, here my thinking :

• The Lydekker's book is talking about "P." chilensis and absolutely not about A. quiriquinensis.

I was not questioning the sources but the clairty of your text. Solved now since A. quiriquinensis is no longer mentioned.

• This formulation feels a bit off. And when you mention that he considered the specimen as a elasmosaurid, you should also mention as what these specimens have been classified before did you even read this in the paragraph previously ? : In 1895, Wilhelm Deecke moved it to the genus Pliosaurus as Pliosaurus chilensis, and attributed other fossils that have been discovered in the same locality.

Ok I see, but we cannot expect the reader to know that Pliosaurus is not an elasmosaurid. It would be ideal to introduce these clade names shortly, and mention Pliosauroidae when you mention Pliosaurus.

• The type species, Aristonectes parvidens, would have been described long before the identification of the holotype specimen This sentence clearly tells to the reader that the first known potential specimen of A. parvidens would have been found and named more than a century before the description by Cabrera (1941), which officially named Aristonectes.

Your explanation now is clear, but this sentence says something entirely different. I even think the sentence is impossible, since you cannot validly describe a species before its holotype has been identified. Maybe replace this sentence with your explanation. Remember, be as clear as you can!

• nominally reclassifies 'P. chilensis' under its original name This sentence says that "P." chilensis was reclassified under the original name as proposed by Gay (1848) in the study of Cabrera (1941).

That means the original name is Plesiosaurus chilensis. Which means the sentence says that P. chilensis is reclassified as P. chilensis. That does not make any sense to me.

• As for the other problem you mentionned, i think i've corrected them.

-- Amirani1746 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Look, I am just trying to help. What I am trying to do here is showing which parts confused me while reading. I have a background in paleontology, and when I do not understand something, I have serious doubt that our general readership (whitout such background) will. It might be that these misunderstandings are partly due to me being stupid, but then I think that our readership is even more stupid. It is simply not clear enough then, and we need to find ways to make it as clear as possible. Imagine you write for a grandma. The GA criteria clearly state that in an GA, "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience", and we are not there yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack I think I have fixed the last three problems that you told me. Amirani1746 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• The first sentence still seems entirely wrong to me. The type species, Aristonectes parvidens, would have been found and described long before – no, the type species was described in 1941, not "long before". You probably want to refer to the first specimen here, not the type species. long before the identification of the holotype specimen – no, we do not "identify" an holotype. We have a diagnostic specimen and base a species on it; we do not erect a species and then search for an holotype. Do you just want to say that the first specimen was found long before the genus Aristonectes was named? Then, please, just write that! Why so complicated? Why do you even need to put the words "holotype" and "type species" in there?
• Cabrera nominally reclassified "Plesiosaurus" chilensis under its original name and compared some remains attributed to this latter to the new taxon named – So am I interpreting this correctly, that Cabrera moved it back into Plesiosaurus, as Plesiosaurus chilensis? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Jens Lallensack sorry for the late of my response, i was occupied (by the way, don't hesitate to always link my user name into this discussion so that I am informed in my notifications) :

  • I think the last summary text problem is now fixed
  • About the "first specimen" case, i think i've fixed the problem that you described.
  • Concerning Cabrera classifying "Plesiosaurus" chilensis under its original name, this is exaclty what is was saying in this sentence.
  • The "valid name" problem is fixed
  • And i think that the "P." chilensis attributed fossils problem is fixed.

  Amirani1746 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• but semeed uncertain about the validity of the name. – please see my comment about the word "valid" above that I made for the lede.
• After several more reads, I think I begin to understand this paragraph a bit better. But I am still unsure. What is this P. chilensis holotype? It is still the single caudal, right? But then, you have the sentence Also in the article, he considers that the fossil material previously attributed to "P." chilensis could come from elasmosaurids. – What fossil material is this? I don't see it mentioned before, nor that it had been removed from the species? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Amirani1746: Your response was not slow at all! As I said above, it is not always enough that a sentence is technically correct; it also needs to be easy to read and understand. This is what "well-written" means. Now that I understand the paragraph, let me make some suggestion of how to improve it:

• The first specimen of type species, Aristonectes parvidens, would have been discovered long before this genus was named by Ángel Cabrera in 1941. – "The first Aristonectes fossil was discovered long before the genus was named by Ángel Cabrera in 1941." Isn't that more simple? Isn't that easier to read and understand? The problem with your insistence of the word "type species" is that a reader is inclined to think that it is only the type species and the other species is even older. By just saying "The first Aristonectes fossil", you remove this ambiguity and actually offer more precise information. Introducing the name "A. parvidens" can wait for later, we do not need that yet.
• In 1941, in the official description of A. parvidens, Cabrera nominally reclassified "Plesiosaurus" chilensis under its original name and compared some remains attributed to this latter to the new taxon named – Yes, I now understand it, but this sentence is quite a puzzle and has to be clearer. I suggest: "In 1941, Cabrera described a different specimen from Quiriquina Island as the new genus and species Aristonectes parvidens. In the same publication, he also moved Elasmosaurus chilensis back into Plesiosaurus (therefore resurrecting its original name Plesiosaurus chilensis), and compared it with his new species Aristonectes parvidens" This would make it easier for the reader to follow. It makes clear that Cabrera did not refer "P. chilensis" to Aristonectes (which readers like me would easily assume), and it always makes clear what we are talking about. Don't you agree that this is way better?
• 1949, Edwin H. Colbert considered as the holotype specimen of "P." chilensis belongs to a pliosauroid, – You didn't specifically introduce this holotype yet (it is only implied). Maybe instead "the original caudal vertebra" or "the holotype specimen (the caudal vertebra originally described by Gay)" or similar.
• After a further analysis published in 2013 – Why do you provide author names everywhere but not here?
• I would always spell out the genus names, we have enough space. This is especially important because you have both "Plesioaurus chilensis" and "Pliosaurus chilensis", by using "P. chilensis" it is not clear which one you mean. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack thank for your correcting suggestions, but the first named specimen of A. parvidens does not come from Quiriquina Island, but from the Chubut province in Argentina. The rest, i've fixed them. Amirani1746 (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• but seemed uncertain about the validity of the species – Does "seemed" mean that you only assume that he was uncertain? Did Colbert use the term valid/invalid?
• I am wondering if "Plesiosaurus" chilensis should be written in quotation marks or not. It was probably not put in quotation marks when it was originally described, right? We should probably follow the source in each case.

• In September 1940, Pablo Groeber sent this specimen – Do you know who Groeber was? He was not one of the collectors, so how did he got the specimen?
• Same for Cristian S. Petersen; if you know who that was (paleontologist?), then add this please.
• on the basis of ontogenetic analyzes carried out on the fossils. – This does not say anything, actually. Of course, when age was determined, we could always call it "ontogenetic analysis", and of course it was carried out on the fossils (on what else?). I suggest to just remove this part, or make it more specific.
• After observations, Cabrera described the animal – Similar here. "After observations" does not contain information. No reader will assume that Cabrera described the animal without making observations.
• under the scientific name Aristonectes parvidens – I suggest to write simply "as Aristonectes parvidens". If you want to state and link "scientific name", you should do that for the first such name mentioned in the article (but I personally think this type of addition is bloat and would avoid it)
• Since the original specimen was reconstructed from stoneware casts, – Why, was the original specimen lost? If so, you should explicitly mention everything (not only implying).
• Aristonectes affinities generated doubts about its characteristics throughout the 20th century – I do not understand this sentence (affinities with what?). Do you want to say "it's precise anatomy remained uncertain throughout the 20th century" or something like that? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Jens Lallensack I corrected all the problems you stated, but I want to respond to those others. Concerning the name of Plesiosaurus chilensis, it is named as such by Gay, 1848, but later (and those even in the article by Cabrera, 1941), the taxon named "Plesiosaurus" chilensis. No reason says why or how when it comes to this renaming (I know that many genera of plesiosaurs at the time were named under the name Plesiosaurus, but in this case nothing explains why). For the names of the discoverers, the article by Cabrera, 1941 and Otero, 2016 (which helped me write this chapter), only mentions the names, but I have absolutely nothing about their profession or their biography. -- Amirani1746 (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  • What about my point on the "ontogenetic" sentence?
  • Regarding the quotation marks: A genus name is put in quotation marks (e.g., "Plesiosaurus") if it is not believed to be a member of that genus. My question: Did Cabrera (1941) put P. chilensis in quotation marks? If so, I don't think he really referred it back into Plesiosaurus.
  • I still do not understand what "Since the original specimen was reconstructed from casts added onto the fossil" means. Can you explain? Does it mean that missing parts of the specimen were heavily reconstructed making it difficult observe the original anatomy? Casts of what, of other plesiosaurs?
  • but seemed dubious about the validity of the species. – No that makes even less sense now. Do you mean that the validity is dubious? Can you tell me what the source says precisely, then I can make suggestions.

  Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Jens Lallensack :

  • For the ontogenetic sentence, i've marked this : The specimen is interpreted as an adult, or even an elderly individual, on the basis of ontogenetic analyzes carried out its fossils. I don't know it is a big problem here...

  Yes it is. You have information there that is entirely dispensable. I mean, you don't write "The femur is 100 cm in length, on the basis of measurements carried out on the femur". You just write "The femur is 100 cm in lengh". Right? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  • For the "P." chilensis problem : In 1941, Cabrera described a different specimen from Chubut Province, Argentina as the new genus and species Aristonectes parvidens. In the same publication, he also moved with doubts Elasmosaurus chilensis back into Plesiosaurus (therefore resurrecting its original name "Plesiosaurus" chilensis), and compared it with his new species A. parvidens.

  I think you got it wrong. If he lists it as "Plesiosaurus" chilensis, with the quotation marks, he did not move it back into Plesiosaurus (otherwise he should not use the quotation marks). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  • For the third problem i've find an new sentence : Since the unknown parts of the original specimen were reconstructed from added casts of the fossils, the precise anatomy of Aristonectes remained uncertain throughout the 20th century

  Yes this is clearer now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  • The source of Colbert (1949) says this in the end of the page 18 : Such is the status of "Pliosaurus" chilensis at the present time. On the basis of the type it is definitely a pliosaur, but its generic determination is at best uncertain.

  Then you made a mistake, because you write that he was unsure about its validity. As I wrote above, validity is a different thing. He is not unsure about validity, but about the generic placement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Amirani1746 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• and consisted at the base of five vertebrae – What does this mean?
• In the end, the fossil contains all four limbs, – What does "in the end" mean? Can you be more specific? After preparation?
• The specimen, cataloged as SGO.PV.260, was found specifically in beds dating from the Maastrichtian of the Quiriquina Formation, and consisted at the base of five vertebrae, a humerus fragment, and the distal end of a limb. – As written, it contradicts what is stated later, where the specimen all of a sudden consists of much more material. Maybe you mean that when it was discovered in the field, only the mentioned bones were exposed?
• The ontogenetic analyzes carried out on this fossil deduce that they come from a juvenile individual. – Same comment as above. Either you specify what kind of ontogenetic analysis, or you just write "This specimen is interpreted as a juvenile".
• In 2014, the specimen will be referred as belonging to A. quiriquinensis based on comparisons made with the holotype specimen. – This sentence does not make any sense to me, can you explain it?
• from a beach near Cocholgüe – explain where that is?
• And as a general thought (you can ignore it), I thought that maybe these new AI tools could help you with checking English grammar. They are damn good at translating too.
• @Amirani1746: See a few more comments here, and my replies to the old points above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Jens Lallensack, but i dont need some AI toools for correction. Even as native speaker of the French language, I have some sufficient knowledge of English to write and correct articles in this language. Concerning the corrections :

Additional grammar checks help anybody, even native speakers. But it is up to you of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• • For the "P." chilensis problem i've wrote this alternate sentence : In 1949, Edwin H. Colbert found that the holotype specimen of "P." chilensis (the caudal vertebra originally described by Gay) belongs to a pliosauroid, but seemed dubious about its generic placement

"dubious" makes no sense here, as it would mean that Colberts action is dubious. You want to say "uncertain" I think.

• • - and consisted at the base of five vertebrae, what does it means ? Actually me neither, because the article describing the discovery of the specimen SGO.PV.260 only mentions "five vertebrae" during its first exhumation.

Then I rephrase my question: What did you want to say? The grammar makes no sense.

• • The "In the end" problem is now fixed (i think).
  • As written, it contradicts what is stated later, where the specimen all of a sudden consists of much more material. Maybe you mean that when it was discovered in the field, only the mentioned bones were exposed? --No, this means that additional bones were discovered after the first ones was found. This should make sense from your point of view.

I understand what you mean, but the grammar is wrong. You don't say "In 1840, seven planets existed in the solar system". No, of course the eight planets always existed, it was just the case that nr. 8 was not yet discovered. This needs re-formulation.

• • The "ontogenetic" problem is now fixed (i think so).
  • I've found an alternative sentence : In 2014, the specimen was referred to as A. quiriquinensis based on several anatomical comparisons made with the holotype specimen, what do you think ?

Better, but you did not mention that holotype specimen yet, so readers might assume you mean the A. parvidens holotype. I suggest to just remove the part "based on several anatomical comparisons made with the holotype specimen", because this says nothing; no study will refer something without anatomical comparisons.

• • The Cocholgüe problem is fixed.

  Amirani1746 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Just in case you missed them; my other replies from yesterday have not yet been addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Jens Lallensack

  • "dubious" makes no sense here, as it would mean that Colberts action is dubious. You want to say "uncertain" I think. : fixed as you said.
  • For the second problem what do you think about this sentence ? : The specimen, cataloged as SGO.PV.260, was found in Maastrichtian beds of the Quiriquina Formation, and first consisted of five vertebrae, a humerus fragment, and the distal end of a limb.
  • The third problem is fixed also as you said.

  -- Amirani1746 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Description

• because the lack of effective preparations of its fossils – contradicting earlier statement that it is extensive modellimg of missing parts that is the problem here
• to the point of being declared as an incertae sedis – Same point from above here again
• and declare the genus again as valid and distinct. – validity is a different concept from incertae sedis; we had this discussion above
• Why is the Antarctica specimen not discussed in the history section?
• It would seem that there would have been 13 teeth – I suggest to just write "Around 13 teeth were pesent in ..."
• Among the unique characters of the skull of A. quiriquinensis shows the presence of a mental boss, – need "is" instead of "shows", and also: What is a mental boss? Needs explanation
• symphyseal contact – Why not use the same term you used before: mandibular symphysis?
• In A. quiriquinensis, there are no tooth sockets – I don't believe A. quiriquinensis had no tooth sockets, please check grammar
• it is likely that A. quiriquinensis would have had far fewer teeth – Contradicting earlier statement, where you give an exact tooth count. So you need to make clear that these are estimates, using "around" or "ca."
• The smaller tooth is a short-rooted replacement tooth – What smaller tooth? Are there only two teeth preserved?
• All teeth are oriented to the rostral side and would not fit together during jaw occlusion – Here and elsewhere: There are too many technical terms. Often you can avoid them. Here for example: "All teeth are inclined toward the front and would not fit together when the jaws are closed"
• they are mainly documented in specimens of A. quiriquinensis, the holotype specimen of this latter being significantly more complete – Does not completely make sense, as you first talk about "specimens" but then only say that the holotype is more complete. Maybe formulate much simpler and shorter.
• similar to other members of the subfamily Aristonectinae. This morphology would have allowed the aristonectines, including Aristonectes, to maintain – Since you already stated that the statement is specific for aristonectines, write: "This morphology would have allowed for maintaining ..."
• have massive articular facets, featuring elongated coil-shaped bones. – Does not make sense; do you want to say: "are cool-shaped bones with massive articular facets?
• How can a facet me "massive"? Do you mean "robust" or "large" here?
• There are more smaller grammar issues in the Description section as well, need to have another look there. Also note that I am very short on time the days to come, so please be a bit patient. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Jens Lallensack, I have not yet corrected all the details, but if I do not explain the discovery of Aristonectes in Antarctica it is because the specimens concerned are generally described or given the names cf. Aristonectes sp., and therefore cannot be concretely assigned to the genus. Perhaps when I develop the FA version of this article, I will probably add a chapter to it, but for the moment, I am only focusing on the two recognized species. Note also that other articles are in the same case, such as Mosasaurus which does not describe the history of the five recognized species, and which yet also has undetermined specimens discovered in Antarctica. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Antartica species, that makes sense, I agree. But you should say that it "cannot be concretely assigned to the genus" when you first mention it. You say "A referred specimen to Aristonectes", which implies that the referral is quite certain. Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack, i think that that i've corrected the final problems of this chapter that you've talked. If it still it still had problem do not hesitate to contact me to fix it or fix by yourself. Amirani1746 (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Classification and Paleobiology

• Due to the poor preparation of fossils – see above
• junior synonym should be explained/linked.
• Therefore, they moved the genera Aristonectes, Kaiwhekea, Kimmerosaurus and Tatenectes into the new erected family Aristonectidae. – "Therefore" does not make sense here as this action does not obviously follow from the previous sentence.
• After new observations, – redundant
• and has generated several hypotheses about their usefulness – the term is "function", not "usefulness"
• The most frequently cited hypotheses are those that discuss either their use in – many words without saying much, this can be much more concise
• Additionally, although the weight of the gastroliths – total weight, or were the gastroliths smaller?
• the manner in which MLP 89-III-3-1 is preserved (being disarticulated) indicates that the true weight should be higher to have had a minimum value for buoyancy. – I understand what you mean, but this sentence is wrong. (The disarticulated state does not indicate the minimum weight required for buoyancy control)
• After the discovery of A. quiriquinensis in 2014, several juvenile specimens were subsequently referred to this latter. – First time that "several juvenile specimens" are mentioned. The discovery section should clearly indicate what material is known.
• It is more precisely known from the Quiriquina – Again, a grammar issue that results in a wrong meaning that you (I think) did not intend. Just remove "more precisely", since this is redundant.
• a now extinct geographical area – an area cannot be "extinct"
• The new comments above are from a very quick read through the rest of the article. The main problem are grammar and language issue in virtually every sentence; we need a careful copy edit here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Amirani1746: Just in case you missed my new comments, which came after some delay. Also note that you did not yet address some comments from above, those that I added on 01:14, 23 September 2023. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Jens Lallensack ! I think that i've corrected all the last major problems you've mentionned in the article, but what type of alternate sentence could you suggest to me regarding the preservation of specimen MLP-89-III-3-1 ? Amirani1746 (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. What about the older comments I mentioned in my previous response? Let me know if you have questions here. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is only this sentence that i want to be altered : the manner in which MLP 89-III-3-1 is preserved (being disarticulated) indicates that the true weight should be higher to have had a minimum value for buoyancy

Concerning, the other problem, i don't see them. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I would start a new sentence and write: "However, as this specimen was disarticulated when it was discovered (i.e., the bones had moved out of their original anatomical position), it is likely that not all of its gastrolithes have been found."

Regarding the other comments, search for my comment starting with "Yes it is. You have information there that is entirely dispensable.", and there are two more unresolved comments below that. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack thanks for the aternate sentence. But about the other problems you've mentionned, I sincerely do not see any other problem to report despite your indication that you have made. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to keep this sentence of course, otherwise my proposed sentence is without context: The total weight of the gastroliths recovered from this specimen is much lower than that recovered from other elasmosaurids.

Regarding the other comments, ok, I will copy them here, then: --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack Now it is more understanble. I've fixed now the problems, but i think that i've fixed the last one since a long time ago. Amirani1746 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Yes it is. You have information there that is entirely dispensable. I mean, you don't write "The femur is 100 cm in length, on the basis of measurements carried out on the femur". You just write "The femur is 100 cm in lengh". Right?"

"I think you got it wrong. If he lists it as "Plesiosaurus" chilensis, with the quotation marks, he did not move it back into Plesiosaurus (otherwise he should not use the quotation marks). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)"

"Then you made a mistake, because you write that he was unsure about its validity. As I wrote above, validity is a different thing. He is not unsure about validity, but about the generic placement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)"

• Ok, I think we are through with the review, but the language is still not meeting GA criterion 1 "well-written". I shall try to do a copy edit for the article myself. However, this needs time and energy from my side. Maybe this weekend. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Jens Lallensack, it's been a while, when will you come back? Amirani1746 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, I did a copy edit, trying to sole all the grammar errors, and I deleted everything that does not make sense to me. Please have a look and check. Three more comments on things I couldn't fix myself:

  • an affirmation which is based according to their consistencies. – no idea what this means.
  • have constrictions and amphicelous articular surfaces – what do you mean with "constrictions"?
  • Weddellian Province – should be explained at first mention (not later).

  Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Amirani1746: Just in case you did not see this. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for not seeing the response Jens Lallensack, i will continue my edits. Amirani1746 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Jens Lallensack, i think i've corrected the first two points that you mentioned. But i have a big problem about the third because the state of the preservation of gastroliths : The source says this : Regarding the acquisition of gastroliths, there are several factors that suggest that the gastroliths were obtained by a method more similar to taking a random sample of sediment than to taking clasts individually, as is recorded in modern birds (Best and Gionfriddo, 1991). Some features of the gastroliths from MCS 4 (Elasmosauridae subadult-adult, Cerda and Salgado, 2008); MLP 98-I-10-20 (Elasmosauridae juvenile) O’Gorman et al., 2012 and MLP 89-III-3-1 (Aristonectes adult, this paper) support this hypothesis: 1} the absence of size selection, as shown by the continuity of sizes of the gastroliths; and 2) the similar mean sphericity value recorded, which seems to be independent of the ontogenetic stage, size and systematic identity. These features could be best explained by the activity of sampling the clasts without selection. Moreover, in the case of Aristonectes, based on the holotype of Aristonectes parvidens, which has a skull of about 735 mm in length, it is obvious that it would have been unable to select individual small gastroliths between 2 and 10 mm in size but more probably took random samples of sediment. Furthermore, this hypothesis of a random ingestion would explain why the mean sphericity of the sets of gastroliths is close to values observed today in random clasts samples from defined environments, specifically fluvial environments.

  I don't know to make a correct sentence about this, so i need help fo correct an alternate sentence. Cordialy, Amirani1746 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I made an edit, see how it looks. If it looks ok to you, I will promote the article, finally. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it is a very alternate sentence, thanks for your review Jens Lallensack ! Cordialy, Amirani1746 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.