Talk:Hudiesaurus/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

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 20:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 05:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Will review later. A few notes to start with:

• the Greek root "sauros" – "sauros" should be Latin, the Ancient Greek is σαῦρος
  • Done
• Can you specify why they included the word for "butterfly" in the name?
  • Done
• was criticized by paleontologist Paul Upchurch – Either you say "Upchurch and collegues", or "a 2004 review" or something. But that is not a single-author paper as you imply.
  • Done
• be consistent whether you use "et al." or "and colleagues". I suggest the latter to make the article less technical and more accessible.
  • Done
• Also, please replace "referred" with "assigned" when talking about the assignment of specimens and taxa. "Referred" is jargon that is confusing for outsiders.
  • Done
• Pinyin "Hudie" for butterflies – In the lead, you use "butterfly" in singular. The source uses plural, but possibly that is just a mistake?
• Late Kimmeridgian – substages are not capitalised
  • Done
• vertebra (backbone) – a single vertebra is not a backbone though? I would remove the explanation; "vertebra" should be a common enough term?
  • Done
• presacral – explain term
  • Done
• Hudiesaurus is believed to have been very large, even for a sauropod, given the considerable length of the holotype centrum of 55 centimetres (22 in). However, the incomplete nature of the Hudiesaurus holotype remains makes its size difficult to confirm. – way too much text for very few facts; condense
  • Done
• measuring 76 centimetres (30 in) in height, 466 millimetres – can we stick with one unit?
  • Done
• Upchurch and colleagues stated there that there are – there where?
  • Done
• Upchurch and colleagues stated there that there are five diagnostic traits for Hudiesaurus, consisting of; a small projection on the neurocentral junction (area in which the neural arches and the centrum touch) above the lateral pneumatic opening on the neural spine, a split ACDL (anterior centrodiapophyseal lamina) which runs along the transverse process, 5-6 small coels (openings) on the dorsal surface of the prezygapophyseal process, bifurcate SPRLs (spinoprezygapophyseal laminae) close to the base of the metapophysis (a small projection on the articular surfaces of the zygapophysis), and a bifurcate spinopostzygapophyseal lamina immediately above the postzygapophysis. – Hmm, that sentence is borderline especially in terms of WP:MTAU. Try to make the article nice to read; too many glosses (and you would need much more to really explain it) impede reading. I suggest to break it. You could have one sentence explaining what laminae are, and then list the diagnostic features of laminae, etc. Walk the reader through it, so that they can follow.
• Although suggested to be from the Qigu Formation,[21] The Hudiesaurus holotype is definitively known from the Kalaza Formation.[2] – Check grammar. Also, who suggested it to be from the Qigu Formation? That comes out of nowhere. And it should be "known only from the Kalazan Formation" to make sense?
  • Done
• a split ACDL (anterior centrodiapophyseal lamina) which runs along the transverse process – I would not use the abbreviation, and add explanation.
  • Done
• Another useful source: [1]. Has pronunciation of the genus and species name, which can be useful to add.

Sources check

• The source does not say that there was any pun intended in the etymology.
  • Done
• (Minor) The source also says that the specific name refers to the region, so should be added
  • Done
• Due to their long necks, sauropods evolved high shoulders, strong presacral vertebrae, and large scapulae to compensate.[4][5] – Where do these sources say that this is a compensation? The Hallett and Wedel book seems to say the opposite, if anything.
  • Done
• The bifurcated neural spines of Hudiesaurus would have allowed for more lateral control over its neck, a trait indicative of a horizontal neck and feeding posture.[4][6] – One of these sources (the book) states the precisely opposite: "they were aiming … for the tallest cupressaceaen and taxodiacaean conifer species". Note that ideas about sauropod neck postures changed substantially in recent years.
  • Done
• This is a common trait among sauropods and was used to keep bones light.[11][12] – this one is good.
• Hudiesaurus is known from the lower section of the Kalaza Formation in China, one of several fossiliferous formations in the Turpan Basin and Junggar Basin. The Kalaza Formation is Late Jurassic in age, overlying the Middle Jurassic-aged Qigu and Shishugou Formations and underlying the Early Cretaceous-aged Tugulu Group.[17] – Source does not seem to support this? Neither Hudiesaurus nor the Kalaza Formation are mentioned there.

Note: The spot-check failed. Sourcing requirements at GAN became stricter, and now, a failed spot check is considered a valid reason to a quick fail any article. I can give you a chance to fix the article, but if my second spot check finds more issues with text-source integrity, I have to fail it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I will begin implementing these suggestions. Thank you so much for reviewing. AFH (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Many have been implemented. As for the diagnosis of Hudiesaurus, are there any examples of where a complex diagnosis such as this one has been made reader accessible in other articles? A template on what to go by would be very useful. Additionally, I could make a diagram. AFH (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I have made extensive additions to the article with the goal of making it more accessible. Images have been added, a diagram created, and I expanded the text. AFH (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Good job with the diagnosis! I tried to fine-tune a bit, and rearranged the info so that we discuss the laminae first, because they were just introduced, making it easier for the reader to follow.
  • Btw, I don't think we have to reproduce entire diagnoses in Wikipedia. I usually only give two or three traits as examples. Diagnoses become outdated quickly in any case. But in this particular article, where only this vertebra is known, it makes some sense to include it all, and I like how it is now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• A diagram is helpful although not required. This one, as is, is not that helpful because it only gives the abbreviations; it should have the terms spelt out, otherwise a reader won't know what is what. Also, it could help even more if the other features mentioned are labelled, too (centrum, neural spine, diapophysis, metapophysis, etc.). The caption should state in which views the vertebra is seen.
• Unfortunately, the images you added from the JVP-Paper are non-free images (cc non-commercial non-derivative), so cannot be used. You should tag them for deletion on Commons. Sorry for that.
• First paragraph in "Vertebra" does not end in an inline citation.
• You now use both "referred" and "assigned"; should be consistent.
• Not all of my comments from the first round seem to have been addressed, please check. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Implemented all suggestions. Though could I include a glossary of abbreviations on the page so the lamina labels make sense? To put the full names of the laminae would look really bad imo. AFH (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  Nice! Regarding the figure, I personally would only include those terms that are actually mentioned in the article, and spell those out. It might also look better if you move the two views further apart. However, this goes beyond what is required at GAN, and therefore, I am promoting this now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2025 (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.