Talk:Atrociraptor/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 04:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC) & A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Atrociraptor is a genus of dromaeosaurid dinosaur that lived during the from the – during the what?
• premaxillae (frontmost bone of the upper jaw) – "bones", if indeed the left and right are both preserved? Same with "dentaries"?
• and in that its maxillary teeth are more strongly inclined towards the throat than in most other dromaeosaurids, and in the teeth – remove the first "and"?
• maxillary fenestra – could link that to the dinogloss, or explain the term
• Velociraptorine – lower case?
• they used them to restrain struggling prey while dismembering it with the mouth, and flapping the wings to stabilise its position. – since you start with "they", whould it be "their" instead of "its"?
• isolated block of sandstone – what exactly does "isolated" mean here? Ex situ?
• The specimen was in an isolated block of sandstone that was relatively hard, and preparation revealed the right maxilla (main bone of the upper jaw) exposed in outer side-view and the right dentary (tooth-bearing bone of the lower jaw) exposed in inner side view, and both of these bones were left in the block. – So when the block is still intact, shouldn't it be "The specimen is in an isolated block"?
• and the full name can be translated as “Wayne Marshall’s savage robber” – should the "Wayne" really be inside there? It does not appear in the species name at all.
• Atrociraptor does not have unique autapomorphies – You could remove the "unique", this is not needed, and the provided explanation in the bracket already states "distinct").
• but it has a unique combination of features that are so far unknown in relatives. – It is important to write "that is unknown" instead of "that are unknown", because the combination of features is unknown, not the individual features, which is the whole point.
• inclined towards the throat – wording seems strange to me, I would write "inclined backwards", but only personal preference.
• the promaxillary fenestra is well in the lower front of the maxillary fenestra – wording confuses me. Do you mean it is in front and below the maxillary fenestra?
• and, Unusually – unusually
• there are no gaps left by shed teeth. – you already stated that there are no gaps
• When you start with the description of the maxilla, I would start with a new paragraph.
• A labelled diagram of the holotype showing the different bones and fenestrae would greatly help here, I believe.
• In general, I found the description section a bit lenghty and overly detailed, but perhaps only personal taste. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• In this analysis, Acheroraptor was found to be a velociraptorine. – I found that this is not very relevant here and distracts from the main points.
• although they did comment on this recovered classification. – not sure what this means.
• A 2020 study by examined – by who?
• Early Maastrichtian – "early"? Also check "Late Campanian".
• to populate both continents. – You did not mention any continents, or what am I missing?
• The uncertainty of the internal classification of Eudromaeosauria complicates discussion of the placement of Atrociraptor. – This paragraph was slighlty confusing, it does not really seem to fit where it is. Shouldn't this rather be the first paragraph of the "Systematics" section?
• The last two paragraphs of "Systematics" are not really about systematics, but about Palaeobiogeography. What about a new section "palaeobiogeography" for this content?
• Cladogram: Velociraptor sp. – "sp." should not be in italics.
• The development of deep snouts in addition was probably an adaptation for handling vertebrate prey; while velociraptorines with their elongated snouts that allowed for rapid biting at the cost of power perhaps specialised in smaller prey in their desert environments, and Acheroraptor and Saurornitholestes with their intermediate snout dimensions may have had more generalised diets in their more diverse ecosystems, the deep-snouted Atrociraptor and Deinonychus may have had more specialised diets of large-bodied prey. – Sentence is too long and therefore quite difficult to read.
• about 5 km (3.1 mi) West – "west"?
• and a small number of mudstones. – Sounds wrong to me; we cannot possibly count mudstone, can we?
• These are reflective of a highly saturated environment – "These reflect" or "These indicate"?
• How these climatic changed affected – changes?
• to either move elsewhere or else become extinct – should "else" be removed?
• That's all! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review, will get to it soon. By the way, A Cynical Idealist has some info about the flora of the formation on the way as well. FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made most of the changes you suggested for the "Classification" and "Paleoecology" sections. However I do have some follow-up questions and explanations for some of the concerns you've raised.

1. The use of plurals for particular sedimentary deposits is common in the literature. It can also be seen on the WP article for Mudstone. One excerpt from that article reads "...and mudstones have historically received less attention from petrologists than have sandstones". Therefore, I believe the use of "mudstones" is appropriate. I believe the reference for this sentence also uses a similar phrase.
2. The "Classification" section is generally organized in chronological order (the first paragraph discussing the initial classification from 2004 and the later paragraphs discussing developments from the last 2-3 years). Therefore the paragraph that begins with "The uncertainty of the internal classification...", which discusses its omission in a 2021 study is placed where it is. Is there another possible arrangement or wording you suggest that might make it appear less confusing?
3. The final two paragraphs of the "Classification" section, which also discuss paleobiogeography, are interpretations of biogeography based on different results from phylogenetic analyses. It seemed inappropriate to move this section. If these paragraphs were put into a "Paleobiogeography" section, the discussion of the different phylogenetic hypotheses would seemingly be devoid of this necessary context. Adding this context to that section would probably be repetitive for the article and would make the section mostly about phylogeny anyways.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these. Thank you again for your quick feedback! A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

• Regarding the use of plurals, my concern was just with a small number of mudstones, which doesn't make sense to me. It should be "a small percentage of" or similar.
• For the classification section, I suggest to place the general information (e.g., "The uncertainty of the internal classification …") into the first paragraph, and then either mention the 2021 study later in chronological order, or keep it in the first paragraph and generalize ("therefore, not all studies have included this taxon in their analysis") without explicitly mentioning this example.
• I still personally think that the paleobiogeography should be it's own section, this is what we do in other articles, too. Of course everything needs context, but with the same argument, the entire Classification section would have to be placed within the Description section since it completely relies on those features … I think that a new "paleobiogeography" section needs some additional introduction sentences providing the larger picture though.

Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the rest of the changes you suggested in your response. I also made some sentences less meandering and more concise, so hopefully those sections read more coherently. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)