Wikipedia:Peer review/Carcharodontosaurus/archive1

Carcharodontosaurus

I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly expanded it, it is a popular and important article, and I believe it is accurate and well written. Please leave criticisms below, I will put it through both peer review and GA nomination before Featured.

Thanks, AFH (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by SilverTiger

I'll save close nitpicking for the GAN or FAC, but the major concerns I see are:

• In the first size comparison of the two specimens, it says that the neotype is in orange. I don't see an orange silhouette, I see a dark yellow and a bright yellow silhouette.
• Please move the two images currently by "Other referred specimens" elsewhere, and put the map of fossil localities there instead. Then move the Bahariya Formation fauna scene down to the Palaeoenvironment section.
• Speaking of which, since this article is supposed to be written in American English, shouldn't that be Paleoenvironment?
• As for the Bahariya Frm scene, the caption says that C. saharicus is in the center. To me, it looks like Spinosaurus is in the center and C. saharicus is off to the right.
• Please add an opening paragraph to the Description section to summarize the main points of the rest of it.
• I think part of ref 75 is missing (under Pathology). Not fixed, but it's now ref 74, now, "Acrocanthosauridae fam. nov.," in Molnar (2001). Pg. 342. There doesn't seem to be a book title or journal name.
• Under Initial Finds, second paragraph, I don't think you really need to list Markgraf's other discoveries.
• To be honest, I'm not really certain that the list of other referred specimens should be kept, but get a second opinion on that.

I'll give it a closer reading later. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

most suggestions implemented, though I do not know what ref 75 is missing. AFH (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've struck out implemented suggestions above, and have a few more pertaining to the lede:

• Fossils of the genus, now lost, were first described from Algeria by French paleontologists Charles Depéret and Justin Savornin as Megalosaurus saharicus. Many additional remains were collected by crews of German paleontologist Ernst Stromer during a 1914 expedition to Egypt. Stromer did not report this discovery until 1931, in which he dubbed the novel genus Carcharodontosaurus, making the type species C. saharicus. Unfortunately, this specimen was destroyed during the Second World War. - This whole section seems to be missing something: there doesn't seem to be anything special about the many additional remains collected, but then the third and fourth sentences seem to be referring to one discovery in particular that was of note, a specimen that changed how the genus was viewed.
• In 1996 a nearly complete skull of C. saharicus was found in the Kem Kem Beds of Morocco, the first well-preserved specimen to be found in almost a century, and designated the neotype. => "In 1995 a nearly complete skull of C. saharicus, the first well-preserved specimen found in almost a century, was discovered in the Kem Kem Beds of Morocco; it was designated the neotype in 1996."
• Another species was unearthed in sediments from the Echkar Formation of northern Niger. It was named C. iguidensis in 2007. Please rephrase: "Fossils unearthed from the Echkar Formation of northern Niger were described and named as another species, C. iguidensis, in 2007."
• Its jaws were lined with sharp, recurved, serrated teeth that bear striking resemblances to the shark Carcharodon, the inspiration for the name. Please rephrase to "...to those of the great white shark...". Since the literal meaning of the name is given earlier, I don't think the extra jargon of another scientific name is needed here too, when it is elaborated on in the body.
• Though giant, its cranium was made lighter by greatly expanded fossae and fenestra, causing it to become more fragile than the skulls of tyrannosaurids. Please rephrase to "...[but also?] making it more fragile than..."

And for the Paleoenvironment section:

• North Africa during this period bordered the Tethys Sea to its north, terraforming the region into a mangrove-dominated coastal environment filled with vast tidal flats and waterways. - Terraforming? What? I think you used the wrong word here; terraforming is an artificial process. "North Africa during this period was bordered by the Tethys Sea, which transformed the region into a mangrove-dominated coastal environment with vast tidal flats and waterways."
• Isotopes of Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus fossils suggest that the Kem Kem Beds witnessed a temporary monsoon season instead of constant rainfall, a comparable condition present in what is now southern China in cities like Fuzhou. This made it a sub-tropical or tropical environment much like Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Why the odd comparison to southern China? Why not just say, "Isotopes from Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus fossils suggest that the Kem Kem Beds witnessed a temporary monsoon season rather than constant rainfall, similar to [conditions present in?] sub-tropical and tropical environments in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa."
• In these riverine deposits, large fishes evolved including the sawskate Onchopristis, coelacanth Mawsonia, and bichir Bawitius in the Kem Kem Beds and Bahariya Formation. => "These riverine deposits show that large fish evolved, including the sawskate Onchopristis, the coelacanth Mawsonia, and the bichir Bawitius."
• The Kem Kem Beds also bear an abundance of pterosaur material, some of which like Siroccopteryx and Nicorhynchus were fish-eaters. If Carcharodontosaurus ate sauropods, then why is it relevant that some pterosaurs from the same time and region ate fish? Why not just state that the beds also bear an abundance of pterosaur fossils and leave it at that?
• The entire second paragraph here is confusing: first you say there aren't any ornithopods and sauropods in the area but then you say that some theropods may have preyed on them.
• You also say that the composition of dinosaur fauna of the sites is unique- this means nothing, as every site is unique. What you mean is that it is different, unusual, an anomaly in some way that makes it of note. "... it is unusual in that many species of carnivorous theropods from several families are preserved..."
• Some sauropods, potential prey items of carcharodontosaurids and ceratosaurs,[12] are found in the Bahariya Formation such as Paralititan and Aegyptosaurus,... - You don't need the interjected phrase about them being potential prey items. You just said that in the two sentences prior.

This is a big article, and I likely won't give the rest of it as close a reading. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Most suggestions implemented, just need to fix the citations. AFH (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

fixed AFH (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no more major concerns. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As this article is now at GAN, this peer review needs to be closed. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)