Talk:Arambourgiania/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 19:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

link genus, species

After examination of the specimen by paleontologist Camille Arambourg, a new genus and species was named in 1959, Titanopteryx philadelphiae – You do not explicitly say who named it. Better reformulate "Aeambourg named …"

The genus "Titanopteryx" would later be problematic, as it had already been taken by a fly. Because of this, paleontologist Lev Nessov in 1989 named a new genus, Arambourgiania – Not the genus became problematic but the name, right? And isn't it better to write "renamed the genus" instead of "named a new genus"?

Include a link to Philadelphia (Amman)

Arambourgiania has a total neck length of 3 m – "had", right?

more soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
implemented! AFH (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

with -iania being a suffix indicating possession – not mentioned in body. Better move to body to keep the first lead sentence precise?

longer than that of the contemporary giraffe – what giraffe lived at the same time as this pterosaur??

Arambourgiania has often been compared to other gigantic pterosaurs such as Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx in terms of size. – I am struggling to see what the information here is; what is the point?

One of the closest relatives of Arambourgiania is Quetzalcoatlus, as multiple studies have found both pterosaurs to be grouped together within Azhdarchidae. – There are many azhdarchids; just because both are in Azhdarchidae doesn't mean they are particularly close. Do you ment to say they are sister taxa?

In Jordan, Arambourgiania lived in the Ruseifa Formation – I don't think you can say that; it did not "live" in a unit of rocks!

which was a deep marine deposit during the Maastrichtian – no, it is still a deposit today, but it was deposited during the Maastrichtian. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British archaeologist Fielding – Do we know his full name?

brought the fossil to the attention of British archaeologist Fielding. This generated some publicity – suboptimal wording; you are saying that the act of showing the fossil to Fielding generated publicity, but the publicity was certainly due to press releases or similar that Fielding issued after learning about the find.

Arambourg had a plaster cast made and then sent the fossil back to the phosphate mine; this last aspect was later forgotten, and the bone was assumed lost. – I have two issues here: "Send to the phosphate mine" makes little sense to me; certainly it was not sent into the mine? "Send to the owners of the mine" would make more sense. What do the sources say? Second, "this last aspect" refers to the sending to the phosphate mine, so the specimen was thought lost because nobody knew it was "in" in the phosphate mine? Please clarify the sentence here.

This fossil indicated the largest pterosaur known to science, but remained largely ignored, with the pteranodontid Pteranodon still being recognized as the largest pterosaur known to science, until the description of Quetzalcoatlus. – This sentence is quite swampy and imprecise and doesn't really help much. Who thought it was the largest pterosaur known to science, and when?

However, the name "Titanopteryx" was informally kept in use in the West, partially because the new name Arambourgiania was assumed by many to be a nomen dubium (dubious name). – Does not make sense to me; why should Arambourgiania be a nomen dubium but not Titanopteryx?

In early 1995, paleontologists David Martill and Eberhard Frey traveled to Jordan in an attempt to clarify matters. – What did they want to clarify? You didn't mention any issue.

Later, Frey and Martill rejected the suggestion that Arambourgiania was a nomen dubium or a synonym of Quetzalcoatlus, affirming its validity to replace the preoccupied name "Titanopteryx". – You didn't mention that anyone suggested it was Quetzalcoatlus.

affirming its validity to replace the preoccupied name "Titanopteryx" – why does it have to be valid in order to replace a preoccupied name? The one thing does not have anything to do with the other, no?

Note: The article is comprehensive, the structure and flow of information is good, and it has the right amount of detail. But the issue is prose and clarity; it currently fails GA1 "well written". I am doing copy edits to improve on this point, but that will be slow and take time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]