Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop

Welcome to the Article workshop of the WikiProject Palaeontology, a place for collaborative article editing. Paleontology-related articles of any length and quality can be listed here – to obtain feedback for your latest work; to get help in developing an article or request copy edits; to bring an article up to B-class level or to prepare for a Good or Featured Article Nomination; to collaboratively rework our oldest good and featured articles; and more. Submissions here invite everyone to contribute with comments, edits, and/or content additions. It is expected that the nominator will act as the main author, taking the lead in developing the article and responding to comments. This workshop is a novel concept that aims to combine the traditional formats of WP:Peer Review and WP:Collaborations. Unlike the Peer Review, we will not only list comments on this page, but edit the article directly wherever possible. Unlike collaborations, we do not vote on which article to work on together, but rely on a main author who submits the article and feels responsible for taking it forward. The aim of the workshop is to make article work less daunting and more fun by sharing some of the workload. Articles can benefit from the combined skills of several contributors. It also invites everyone to contribute to the listed articles with quick edits or comments, or even substantial content contributions that can lead to spontaneous collaborations. We aim to officially "approve" successfully reworked old Good and Featured Articles once they have been peer-reviewed and are without outstanding issues. In this case, the approved version and a link to the workshop discussion will be listed in the Article history section on the article's talk page, after archival of the review. Reviews should be announced in the WikiProject to gather as many comments as possible. So far, we approved one reworked Good Article (Dracopristis) and two reworked Featured Articles (Thescelosaurus and Lambeosaurus). Listed articles will be automatically archived after 100 days of inactivity. Archived articles may be re-submitted any time. History The current Article workshop has several predecessors. The Dinosaur collaboration started in 2006; a total of 29 collaborations took place, resulting in 14 "featured articles" and 7 "good articles". Its last successful collaboration was Brachiosaurus, which was promoted to "featured article" status in 2018. In 2019, the Palaeontology collaboration was initiated as a supplement, focusing on less complex articles. Its only collaboration was Acamptonectes, which was promoted to "featured article" status in 2021. The Paleo Peer Review was started in 2020, with a total of 43 articles receiving substantial comments, of which 6 were subsequently promoted to "good article" status and 3 to "featured article" status. The Article workshop itself was launched in October 2024 as a direct continuation of the Palaeo Peer Review in a revamped format. Click here to submit an article

Submissions

Massospondylus

My current work-in-progress – an old FA I did some significant work on back in 2012, with the approval of Firsfron, the original main author. My plan is to finish the job now and give it the same treatment as we did for Thescelosaurus – a full revision. Several important papers have been published on it since, so there is quite a bit to do.

I am listing it here already in case anyone has ideas or thoughts, or likes to join in for a collaboration (be welcome!). If this is not the case, I am prepared to finish the job myself, but would probably need some help on the way, especially with images, and, of course, reviews in the end to ensure FA-level quality. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jens. I recall the nice work you did more than a decade ago. I can see several updates are needed. I've been working on sauropodomorph paleontology for a couple of years, and may have some things to contribute here or elsewhere eventually. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Excellent – I will ping you once we are done with the updates, and, if you then have time to take a look, would greatly appreciate your input and your thoughts on whether or not the revision is going into the right direction, particularly regarding length and level of detail. The FA standards have changed since this article was promoted; in particular, we are no longer supposed to completely avoid important but complicated technical details such as autapomorphies, as this may be considered an oversimplification of the topic, but of course it is hard to strike a balance. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jens: I spent some time today fixing some of the grammar and punctuation, and also adding in links to free papers. The article is looking much more robust than it looked a decade ago! I can't say that I'm a fan of removing all of the external resources, but the text of the article seems much improved. More work to follow. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Firsfron: Cool, many thanks for your extensive copy-edit! I still did not finish the work; the "History of discovery" and "Description" sections should be complete, but I didn't do anything on the remaining sections yet. I got very busy in real-life and now need a free head to get started again, but that will happen soon. Regarding the external resources, I boldly removed them because I just could not see how those entries can possibly be of use to readers. All but one of the entries in "further reading" were outdated conference abstracts; these are, in my opinion, just not relevant and nothing we should recommend. As for the weblinks, there were six, the last three pointing to the same outdated news article, and the others to other outdated news articles and one personal website that does not contain anything in addition to this article. That said, I am happy to reinstate those sections, but I think that their content need to be updated – any suggestions here? Thanks again! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• As we already talked about, I'll help with the images and otherwise provide a detailed review once it's ready. By coincidence, the Equatorial Minnesota blog (which I believe is run by a former editor) just published a post with a short summary of the taxonomic history of Maasospondylus and other "prosauropods":[1] FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The article currently doesn't have any maps, but do you think any of these[2][3][4] could be used, Jens Lallensack? Perhaps with modifications? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Good idea! Maybe a map combined with a profile that also shows the biozones (in particular, the Massospondylus range zone). Will think about it when getting into the paleoecology section. At the moment I'm still working myself through the taxonomic history – it is quite complicated. The new part about the dubious taxa got a bit too long, so with a few more articles for some of the Nomina dubia I hope to be able to cut that down a bit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me know when Massospondylus is ready for review, and I'd be happy to give it a look. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I will, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Revision completed

@Firsfron:, @A Cynical Idealist:, @FunkMonk:, @IJReid: I finally found the time to finish this off. It feels like most of the literature on this genus has been published only after the article was promoted to FA back in 2007. The article has always been highly readable, and I hope I managed to maintain that (if not, please let me know). Any comments welcome, and after you approve it, we can struck it from the list of old FAs that need revision. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Do you think that images need improvement? There are more free ones if needed; for example eggs and eggshells ([5]) and semicircular canals ([6]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll have a read soon, as for images, you could probably add some more with the multiple image templates, but also as I mentioned once, could be nice with something under palaeoenvironment, like maps(like this?[7]), photos of localities, or restorations of environments and contemporary taxa? This 3D skull could also be interesting:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Added a couple more images, feel free to adjust as you deem best! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Review by FM

• " The material, a collection of 56 bones or bone fragments, was found in 1853 or 1854 by the government surveyor Joseph Millard Orpen and his brothers on a farm in the Drakensberg mountains near Harrismith, South Africa, and was donated to the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons in London, of which Owen was curator." extremely long sentence.

Fixed.

• " Owen erected three new species" Named or described would be more transparent for lay readers.

Never thought of that … ok, changed throughout the article now.

• There is a good deal of unnecessary duplinks that can be highlighted with the usual script.

Removed most. I like to keep some when occurring in different sections that are important for the reader (humerus, distal, etc.); I saw this approach recently recommended at FAC.

• "(not in their original anatomical compound)" I think compound is a bit hard to understand in this context.

changed to "not connected to each other"

• "seemingly "somewhat arbitrarily"" this quote comes a bit out of the left field. Who said this and when?

Added. Didn't give the date though because it does not matter I think (that statement won't get outdated)?

• "which has been speculated to be due to Owen's "rather perfunctory descriptions", which lacked illustrations." Again, rather subjective assessment quotes like this would need in-text attribution.

Added.

• "In 1888, Richard Lydekker" shouldn't it be consistent whether you present people or not? Now only the first two people mentioned are presented.

Right. I removed the introduction of Owen, now only introducing people who are not palaeontologists.

• I'd assume this should be in UK/SA English, which is basically the same, but I see "paleo" instead of "palaeo", perhaps there are other such issues to check throughout. I also see "ise/ize" used inconsistently. Also "honor" instead of "honour".

Looks like the article, when it passed FA, was in American English. I think it makes sense to switch to SA English, but I think we should let the original author decide. @Firsfron: Which English variant do you prefer here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

As a South African dinosaur genus, the article most certainly should be in Commonwealth English. At the time the article was promoted, there was Arizona material assigned to the genus, which made it international, and US English prevailed at that time. Sarahsaurus didn't yet exist, which is no longer the case. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, also, connection to an Engvar trumps what the article was originally written in, as far as I gather. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks both. Now switched to South African English. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• " Lydekker furthermore proposed that Owen's description was invalid" I think it's important to clarify why he thought so.

Added Lydekker furthermore proposed that Owen's description was too incomplete for the name Massospondylus carinatus to be considered valid.

• "Only 23 of 550 specimens of the museum's comparative anatomy collection survived" I'd say "in" or "at the museum's" to avoid the double "of".

done

• "Timelapse video showing the creation of a support jacket for one of the blocks of the neotype specimen" The year could be interesting to mention in the caption?

The source does not state the precise years when the preparation works they describe happened, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Cast of the neotype skull" Better to show the real thing here if we have images of it? Though it seems we don't have images of it with the jaw in place (that cast is the best for that). Almost a shame we don't use this real photo anywhere, though:[9]

I replaced it (the jaw can be seen in the taxonbox image). If you have better ideas, feel free to change (as you know, I am not good with images).

Nice, a similar cast of the neotype is seen in the growth section anyway. Perhaps it should be noted which specimens are shown there? FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Added. As an alternative, we also have this image available: [10]. It shows the same skulls. Which one is better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hard to say, but you know me, I'd just put them both side by side in a multi image template hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I did that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Fossils identified by Broom in 1911 as Gryponyx, M. carinatus, M. harriesi, and Aetonyx, all now thought to be M. carinatu" Now some of these have their own articles, so are they really thought to be synonyms? Also, should be linked.

Ah, forgot to update that caption. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Interactive 3D model of the neotype skull" perhaps mention that this and other shown models are based on scans?

Changed to "3D scan" to make that clear. Do you think we should state the type of scan (the skull is Micro CT, the vertebrae are photogrammetry)?

I probably would, but maybe too much. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I decided to leave it out, as it would add technical terms that are not strictly necessary. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "The lost Orpen collection" Link Orpen?

done

• "By 1976, Massospondylus was the most widespread sauropodomorp" this term isn't previously linked or explained.

Linked. I think it becomes clear that this is a group, so might not have to be explained at this point.

• "The losses included many specimens that have been pivotal in the history of science, as well as Massospondylus" specify if the syntype series remains in entirety or if some of it was lost?

The entire Orpen collection was lost, not only the syntype series of Massospondylus. But we already say "of which only illustrations and plaster casts remain"; doesn't this make it clear that no original fossils survived?

To me it was unclear because it isn't stated outright, the reader kind of has to connect the dots, especially because the term syntype is only mentioned in the section after. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Clarified. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• "to designate a different specimen, BP/1/4934" hard to decipher that this is an institution you've previously mentioned.

Further down we say that the specimen is in the Evolutionary Studies Institute in Johannesburg, so the reader does not really have to decipher those abbreviations. Should we mention this right at front? But is it really that important?

Perhaps not (I usually state institution for a type specimen right off the bat, as the location for that is more important than for other specimens). FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Stated now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• "as the neotype specimen (representative specimen)" I'd add "new" in the parenthesis, as this is the crucial part.

done

• "has been described in detail in 2018 and 2019, respectively" By who?

Never sure when to add names (which can also make it more technical and more difficult to read). Added here.

• Explain basal at first mention.

Done, hope "early diverging" is clear enough.

Yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "the humerus; and parts of the hindlimb including the femur, tibia" A bunch of terms here that probably need glossing.

Added.

• "it in the Evolutionary Studies Institute in Johannesburg" You already stated this is in Johannesburg.

Fixed.

• Link matrix.

Done.

• "which is about 35 kg in weight" Convert?

According to policy, we do not have to convert in science articles that do not have a strong connection to countries with imperial units. Leaving them out avoids clutter, but I don't have a strong opinion here.

As it is done under description, it seems a bit off that it's inconsistent throughout? FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. I just added the missing conversions; I can't say I like them but at least we are consistent now with the other dinosaur articles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Restoration of a juvenile M. carinatus, shown here as a quadruped (on four legs) and with pronated (forward-facing) hands, which is now considered inaccurate" Perhaps state this was once considered likely?

Changed to "Restoration of a juvenile M. carinatus following a 2005 restoration by Robert Reisz and colleagues. The quadrupedal (four-legged) posture and the pronated (forward-facing) hands are now considered inaccurate". However, Reisz et al. 2005 do not mention that their drawing shows pronated hands (though it clearly does); I therefore hope that this is not verging on WP:Synth.

Seems ok. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Stratigraphy of the Stormberg Group" Link both terms?

Done.

• Any restorations of its environment or contemporary fauna that could be interesting for that section?

I couldn't find any. Will keep an eye open for that.

• Should footnote c have a citation?

Added.

• "but cladistic analyses led by" Link the term here.

Done.

• A bit funny the neotype cast is shown under "Misidentified specimens"? I'd almost expect one of the reassigned specimens to be shown there? And then maybe the neotype image moved up to the beginning of "Later discoveries and the neotype specimen".

Moved it up. Showing a misidentified specimen? But any choice here just feels random. Thinking about it.

Whatever we have the best images of or is most historically significant is usually what I pick. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Added two. Not super happy with that, but I thought we should illustrate those taxa that redirect to this article, not those that are discussed elsewhere. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it creates sandwiching issues, at least on my screen

Replaced. Now we have just one multi image template, showing only elements of the Masso species, we we don't have that confusing mess anymore too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Any reason why you jump between abbreviating the genus name or not when you mention the full binomial?

Not sure here. I now went with abbreviating, but left the first mention of M. kaalae unabbreviated, since otherwise "Massospondylus kalaae" does not even appear in the article if someone searches for it. Does that look ok?

Makes sense for that. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "from the "Maleri beds" of India" why the quotation marks?

To indicate that this is not a meaningful term anymore. Changed to "He also assigned fossils to Massospondylus that were recovered from what he called the "Maleri beds" in India."

Now gone. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• It seems a bit off that you mention suggested Indian, US, and Argentinian specimens, then mention Chinese last, but present the Chinese material and its evaluation first, then start over again with the order you began with. Wouldn't it make sense to do it all in the same order? As in, mention all the countries, then present them in depth in the same order?

Fixed, hope that's better now.

• No synonyms left to list in the taxobox at all?

Currently there are no synonyms as far as I am aware, right.

• " In 2004, Paul Barrett noted" You already named and linked him earlier.

fixed.

• Since the first section is basically about the type species, I wonder if the "Species" section should be called "additional species". Then " M. carinatus, described by Owen in 1854" is redundant, and isn't elaborated on there anyway.

Ok, done.

• "manager for the Karoo vertebrate fossils" You haven't mentioned or linked Karoo until this point.

Linked. Not explained at this point since that's of secondary importance for that sentence.

• "found by Mr Rawes" Mr.?

Changed to: found by a "Mr Rawes". Or should we just drop the name?

My issue was that it needed punctuation. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Added.

• "in the latest review,[24] but M. rawesi is an indeterminate theropod." Probably more useful to give author and date for these opinions?

Done.

• "by Mr. Alfred Brown." Is Mr. needed when you give a full name?

No. Dropped.

• Perhaps the meaning of "indeterminate" in this context needs to be explained.

Added "(too incomplete to be classified)"

• " in the most recent review.[24]" As above.

Done.

• "Misidentified specimens" I think something like "formerly assigned species" would be clearer, because the "species" section is also about supposed misidentified species that are just indeterminate. I think maybe the scope of these latter sections is in general a bit confusing and overlapping. For example you mention the same info about Indian and Chinese specimens, just with different focus. I wonder if there could be a way to consolidate this and make it less repetitive.

Tried to re-organise the thing, and got rid of the repetitions. How does that look now? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks better without the redundancies, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• The first sentence under "Previously synonymized species" lacks a citation. Possibly you could argue it just presents the succeeding text, but I think citations would still be safer.

Repeated the refs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• "he had discovered near Bethlehem" Perhaps good to clarify this is also in South Africa?

Good point, stated. It could have been located in Lesotho, where some sites are. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• How many specimens are known by now? Could maybe be interesting to note, as I couldn't find this info.

It is stated down in "Distribution and abundance". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

You state how many M. kaalae specimens there are under history, which is also where I would look for this info for the type species. Personally, I would state the number under history, then just reiterate it under distribution, where you make a point of it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, very few specimens can momentarily be safely assigned to the type species; all others have been labelled "M. carinatus" but need revision because this is no longer the only species of sauropodomorph in the Upper Stormberg Group. I could give the numbers of Massospondylus specimens in general, as done under "abundance", but it does not fit into the chronological structure of the History section; I will add it if I can find a proper place for it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Probably not much to do about it, but doesn't it seem like the skull of the London mount[11] is actually based on that of Ngwevu?

Looks like it, yeah. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• "A small fenestra also penetrated the mandible" we have a dinogloss for that fenestra, no?

Added.

• Link sauropod at first mention (start of description).

Done.

• Link Morphology (biology)?

Done.

• "giving the tooth row the profile of a saw" Similar to a saw? Current wording seems a bit strong.

Changed.

• Explain spatulate.

Done.

• While I think it's silly to dismiss the presence of any fleshy covering in the side of the mouths of dinosaurs, this may have been challenged by the more recent studies that rule out at least cheek muscles? "As with other early sauropodomorphs, it has been proposed that Massospondylus had fleshy cheeks, as there were few but large holes for blood vessels on the surfaces of the jaw bones, unlike the numerous small holes present on the jaws of cheekless reptiles. The cheeks would have prevented food from spilling out when Massospondylus ate".

I can't find that; do you remember the study? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It's those Nabavizadeh studies from recent years, they make some general statements I think. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, and added. Looking into his work, I also found material on jaw mechanics, so I wrote a new paragraph on that in the "Diet and feeding" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Explain autapomorphy. You use the term diagnostic in the skull section, but under the section on postcrania you use autapomorphy, without connecting the two. Could also use a more layman friendly "distinguishing feature".

Went with "distinguishing feature" throughout.

• Would "postcranial skeleton" be a clearer title than "Vertebrae, girdles, and limbs"? That's at least what we have used in many other FAs.

The current title is more layman-friendly, no? Why is "Vertebrae, girdles, and limbs" unclear?

Probably fine, for me it's just a lot of words and commas. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Anything to say about the tail?

We have "at least 40 tail vertebrae". Apart from that, I'm not sure what could be relevant enough. I am not a fan of stating random anatomical features only to cover the entire skeleton.

Anything on whether it's proportionally gracile or robust, long or short? FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That would be a great addition indeed. I just checked the main sources again; the tail does not seem to be described well at all. The neotype preserves only four caudals, so is not of much help. Cooper only described a single caudal of uncertain position. So I fear that we cannot do much about it, but I will keep an eye open. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe link southern hemisphere?

Done.

• "The teeth were proportionally longer and slenderer than those of Plateosaurus." But the shape of its teeth themselves don't appear to be described? This wording assumes the reader already knows the shape of Plateosaurus teeth and can deduct from that.

Placed the Plateosaurus comparison to the end, after the description. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Link crocodilian at first instead of second mention.

Done.

• While Prosauropoda is just a redirect, I wonder if this term needs some explanation, as it now doesn't link anywhere from here, but is mentioned some times.

Replaced with "basal sauropodomorphs", a term we use elsewhere already. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "when Alan J. Charig argued that Prosauropoda is more closely related to Sauropoda." Why shift in tense?

fixed.

• "was generally uphold" upheld?

yeah, fixed.

• Plateosauridae is linked twice in close succession.

fixed.

• "In the 1990 encyclopedia The Dinosauria" As a book-title, shouldn't this be in italics?

yes, done.

• And add "the 1990 edition of"? As the 2004 edition is quite different. Does that edition say something new?

They do not mention Massospondylidae, but since the 1990 chapter had Massospondylus as the only member anyways, I can't say if they contradict this classification.

• "As with all dinosaurs, much of the biology of Massospondylus, including its behavior, colouration" Does the source really mention colouration?

That entire paragraph is just editorial (basically still from the original FA), but I kept it as I thought that it helps readers with orientation. I now cut the specifics, including colour, and focus on what we can say, which is supported by that source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "recent studies favor" Favour?

Corrected two instances.

• "However, Wings and Sander showed in 2007 that the polished nature and the abundance of those stones precluded their use as an effective gastric mill in most non-theropod dinosaurs, including Massospondylus" So what might have been their purpose instead?

Either the stones are not gastroliths, or they were swallowed accidentally or for their minerals. Unfortunately, the source makes that claim for sauropods, not for basal sauropodomorphs. If I can find a source stating this for sauropodomorphs in general, I will add it; so far I couldn't find one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Bonnan and Senter suggested that some bipedal trackways of the ichnogenus Otozoum might have been produced by Massospondylus" Are these also found in South Africa?

Yes, they have been found in North America, South Africa, and other places. I assume that these authors referred to what is now known as Sarahsaurus, but who knows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Neither could the forelimbs swing forward and behind in a fashion similar to the hindlimbs, nor could the hand be pronated (rotated so that the fingers face forwards when the forelimb is vertical)." Not a big deal, but why forelimbs in plural but hand in singular?

fixed.

• "However, a recent discovery shows that Massospondylus" recent is a meaningless term in an article that could exist forever, give year? Since you give it for other studies discussed in the section, perhaps also authorship?

Good catch. There isn't even anything "recent", the specimen has been known for decades. Made several fixes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "noted that the zygapophyses of the neck vertebrae" this could warrant in-text explanation.

Added, and re-wrote the sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "This was contradicted in a recent study" same as a above; you give both date and author for the study this responds to, so why not here?

Rewritten.

• "used repeatedly (site fidelity), by groups of animals (colonial nesting)" anything these terms can link to?

Linked both.

• "There are no hints that Massospondylus constructed nests; however, Reisz and colleagues suggested in 2012 that the arrangement of the eggs in tight rows indicates that the eggs were pushed into this position by the adults." why however? What's the contradiction?

Right. The idea was "it did not construct nests, but nonetheless manipulated the clutch by moving the eggs". Removed the "however" now.

• And what is the definition of a nest if you say they didn't make nests yet practiced communal nesting?

I replaced "nesting" with "breeding" to be less confusing here. They most probably built some sort of nest (e.g., scraping the ground), it is just that we don't have evidence for such structures. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Link Mussaurus at first instead of second mention.

Done

• "the 15-centimetre- (6 in-) long " you abreviate most other measurements.

Fixed.

• "In contrast, Mark Norell and colleagues argued in 2020 that the eggshell of early dinosaurs such as Massospondylus was soft" Based on what?

Added.

• "in a low-oxygen and carbon dioxide-rich" Links?

Done.

• "Possible postural shift" I wonder if this should come after the growth section, as it's basically about changes due to age and growth?

Moved up.

• "that tracks from at the same site at which" first at is unnecessary.

removed.

• "suggesting that Massospondylus was bipedal at all ages." So what did those quadrupedal tracks belong to?

As far as I know, those tracks have not been discussed outside Reisz et al. 2012. No alternative explanation has been published. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• "climate was favorable" favourable?

fixed.

• "intermediate between ectothermy and endothermy" somehow these terms could be explained?

Yes, added.

• "During the later half of the Elliot Formation" latter? Also, can you say "during" for a formation, as it's not a time unit?

Yeah, fixed.

• "African Massospondylus was a contemporary of" this seems like a relic from when it was thought to also be found outside Africa?

Indeed, fixed.

• Is the "sir" needed for Owen?

I removed it (and linked the name at first mention)

• "but the US and Argentinian specimens are now assigned to their own genera (Sarahsaurus and Adeopapposaurus)." seems a bit detailed for the intro? I'd just say "but these specimens are not thought to belong to this genus anymore" or some such.

I thought it would be helpful and practical, since readers looking for the American Massospondylus are directly pointed to the articles they want. Also, this makes clear that these specimens are now under their own genus. But I will chance if you still disagree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think the intro is a little bit unbalanced in what it goes in very minute detail about (discredited theories about taxonomy and lifestyle), while glossing over other things (meaning of the name? Distinguishing features?)

Expanded lead, hope it's better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just noticed two further issues I won't fix myself to avoid edit-conflicts: Zimbabwe is linked, though we generally don't link countries.

Fixed.

• Your last edits introduced the typo "intead".

To me, that one was invisible. Fixed.

@FunkMonk: Many thanks for this comprehensive and super helpful review – the article is so much better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, it was an enjoyable read! Should now be ready for @A Cynical Idealist: to begin. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Review by A Cynical Idealist

I will begin my review once the revisions from FunkMonk's review have been completed. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that FunkMonk is done, I will begin my review soon. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Schinderhannes bartelsi

An older GA that was promoted very quickly after the taxon in question was described. The page features a dubious case of a fair use image (is it possible that another photograph of the fossil has been published in a CC paper sometime since 2009?) and may be outdated and/or in need of expansion, although I'm not familiar enough with radiodonts to say for sure. Is anyone more familiar with this group able to comment about its comprehensiveness, and does the fair use rationale of the used image apply now that illustrations have been created?

Also, I do hope that article workshop hasn't been forgotten or abandoned, I've noticed a lack of posts here for the last month or so. If there are still other users actively checking the workshop I may make similar posts for other old good articles. Gasmasque (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This article probably shouldn't have passed, its quite barebones through many sections (especially description) but as well it has non-free images and just doesn't feel like a GA. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Standards were very different in '09, this article was only about 5k bytes at the time it passed and has actually been added to significantly since then. Again, I don't know enough about this group of animals to say if those additions are comprehensive enough to adequately cover the topic as of 2025, @@Junsik1223, @@Ta-tea-two-te-to, and @@Junnn11 would be the ones to ask since they've contributed since the GA promotion. It's possible this article is still fully comprehensive, and issues like excessive citations, the dubious taxobox image licensing and some terms in the text that are unlinked/not adequately explained can be relatively quickly fixed. Gasmasque (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed the non-free image (clear case imo). There are many obvious things that could be improved (more background info for context, longer lead, etc.). I also don't have any knowledge about this group. If there are serious issues with the content that we cannot fix, we should have it delisted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think a lot of editors have this page watchlisted, so activity will increase as long as anyone posts stuff for review. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Sauropodomorpha

This article is in pretty bad shape, and is especially lacking in detailed coverage of prosauropods, which don't really have good treatment on wikipedia at the moment. Obviously, overhauling this article will be a big undertaking if we want to be even remotely comprehensive, and I've created an outline for the article in my sandbox here. I would appreciate some help in this effort, at least for some sections. The "research history" in particular is a difficult and tedious topic for me to write about, whereas I don't mind writing about the technical anatomy or classification aspects at all. If anyone feels that the article outline I've created is insufficient in any way, that's also not set in stone, I just created it so we would have a rough blueprint of what the final article might look like and to gauge progress. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this is something I can put some effort to slowly over time. The outline feels a little bit too big to me, but maybe thats because some sections will end up merged and are just listed there as placeholders. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's entirely possible, it depends on how much each topic is covered in the literature. Generally I think higher-level clades should be more comprehensive, and I based this outline on what I did with Eudromaeosauria. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there are way to many subsections. The challenge will be to produce a concise, focused, and coherent article, so I would focus on major sections and split them up later when you see the need. I wrote some articles about higher-level taxa for the German Wikipedia, long time ago, including "sauropod". There I went with 1) "Description", 2) "Paleobiology", 3) "Evolutionary history and diversity", 4) Systematics, 5) History of research.

I would also try to focus on basal sauropodomorphs here (because we most often use the name "sauropodomorph" for non-sauropods). For example, I am unconvinced that an entire section on extinction is necessary, that might only need a sentence or so. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Extinction could easily be included in a section on evolutionary history and diversity, in my opinion. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Many of these sections would likely be consolidated in the final article, depending on how much coverage they get in the literature. My outline basically has the same five sections that you've outlined, just with slightly different names and more detailed subsections, and I'm not married to the section names. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• @A Cynical Idealist: Just mentioning, there is a very useful summary in "The Complete Dinosaur", 2nd edition, on basal sauropodomorphs (and another one on sauropods). That should have some nice general points. I'm going to throw that chapter at Massospondylus now to sum-up the history of sauropodomorph systematics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sweet thanks, I'll see if I can get ahold of it. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Check your email! We really should mention teratosaurids in the history section, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Got the email, thanks. The history section as-is was writted by @IJReid:. I asked him to write that section. I assume its unfinished, but I also don't know if he has a timetable for working on it. Once the rest of the article is done, I can revisit the section if Reid isn't planning to do more work on it. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I got a bit pulled away from that section because its meant to cover history of research and not exactly history of classifications etc and I was unsure how to write that, so I added what I had written for others to work off in case I didn't come back to it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Paleontology

So at my own behest and somewhat inspired by the top article status discussions, I have undertaken a complete rewriting and recomposition of paleontology at My Sandbox. There has been some copyediting by @A Cynical Idealist, mainly of the first two sections of body, but I think this is a good place to bring the (mostly?) finished piece for some discussions or review. If approved by those here, I will replace the content at the mainspace article (I kinda wanna do it all at once to make it my largest single edit forever) and push the article through a FA nomination. It would be nice to have a very good article for one of the "concept" topics as a reference, and also as the foundational topic of this wikiproject I think it might be a decent thing to work on together. Of special note is that not all subdisciplines are discussed (an exhaustive list could be made of ones not focused on) but the selection of those to include is cited. Thoughts? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts from me to put in writing for a discussion here. I think further copyediting of the draft should wait until we decide if it needs much more work before putting it to FA so that we don't have to worry about Help:Page history attribution policies. The current article is a GA but since the end goal here is FA I don't feel overwhelmed pushing straight for an FA once content is moved if we think it is unlikely to immediately fail. GA is not a requirement after all for content progression, just a good place to establish the basic standards are met. I am going to continue with some fiddling of things like the see also section or templates, and I might also add a pop culture section if there are good sources for it (probably are). There are other things I've noticed to bring up at the project talk so I won't mention those here. I feel pretty good with the state of the draft, and if others agree they can hold off on smaller comments to provide a more full-scale FA review if they want. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

One thing I wanted to mention is I'm curious why you made the choice to omit dedicated discussion of subdisciplines of paleontology based on subject matter (i.e. vert paleo, invert paleo, paleobotany, paleomycology, etc). They are mentioned in the article body, but they are generally prominent subfields in the literature to my eye, at least more than "paleobiology", which seems a bit overly broad as a subdiscipline. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly it was mainly because it feels difficult to summarize them in a meaningful way that is not just duplication of text. "Paleobotany is the study of fossil plants" is about all you can really say that is unique to paleobotany and not part of paleoclimatology, paleobiogeography or paleoecology, and it doesn't feel worthwhile to have unique sections for that. There are also a lot of borderline cases of taxonomic paleontology that would add quite a bit to the article size, like whether "dinosaur paleontology" is its own subdiscipline. Wiktionary has 385 words prefixed with paleo- in the english language and covering them all is just too much. The subdisciplines listed are those found in Hall (2002) and Kelley (2013) where they are specifically listed as areas of overlap with other sciences, so that is how I chose what disciplines to describe (as alluded to in the section header). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a reasonable. I would say the importance of subject-matter-specific subfields warrants at least a single dedicated paragraph, maybe at the beginning of the "subfields" section, or within the "paleobiology" subsection. At least the subfields that have their own articles (Vertebrate paleontology, Invertebrate paleontology, Paleobotany, Paleomycology, and Micropaleontology). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that first paragraph can be expanded to have a bit better scope yeah. There are mor fields even that aren't mentioned yet that I come across randomly to include. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Almost all additions should be done at this point so how does it look? Do we feel like it can be ready to move it into the mainspace and put it up for Featured Article? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be doing some copy editing over the next several days, but when I'm done I'll give my personal go-ahead to push to FA. Not sure if anyone else has any input/opinions. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Jens Just some quick notes for now:

• Can we really consider Paleogeography as a subdiscipline of Paleontology? Your article itself states that it is "a subdiscipline of the geosciences". Paleobiogeography should cover it.
• Ichnology is not restricted to trace fossils, it includes modern traces as well (although the bulk of research is done on fossils). The term is "Palaeoichnology". I see that the Trace fossil article equates it to trace fossils, but already the title of the cited source in that article contradicts it.
• He developed ichnotaxonomy – sounds as if he invented it, which is not the case.
• Some trace fossils show evidence of gregariousness in animals travelling together in the same direction or congregating at a site, while others can show pathologies in the form of uneven gaits or pathologic foot impressions. Trackways of footprints can even be used to estimate the size and speed of their creators and their courtship and nesting behaviors. – This is quite narrowly focussed on trackways, but trace fossils are much more than that. Overall, the ichnology section is quite biased towards vertebrates. "Courtship and nesting behaviors" are extremely rare cases only. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I figured you would have better insights into ichnology than I do, so I'm wondering how you would restructure not only the section but also the articles. Perhaps we have to move "Trace fossil" to "Ichnology" and then establish paleoichnology as a subsection of that article? The vertebrate bias is largely because of sources that were easily accessible, I think they all largely focus on vertebrates. I'm equivocal about the removal of Paleogeography from the sections, it is listed in the source I drew from but overall its probably more of an edge field thats equally between paleontology and geology. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "Paleogeography", I am not convinced; most info in that section is not about paleontology (and the sentence on biogeography could be in the section paleobiogeography). Having two sections (paleogeography and paleobiogeography) on very similar topics at different places in the article does not make sense to me. Maybe you could combine them into one section ("Paleogeography and paleobiogeography"), but again, it is not clear why the former should be in an article on Palaeontology.

Regarding the ichnology: Difficult, not sure on what to focus on. I would remove the "movement paleoecology"; it has just 15 hits on Google Scholar and is just not relevant. Maybe focus more on what a trace fossil is, listing examples (invertebrate, vertebrate, plant, and microbes), their properties (recording biological activity/behaviour; often occurring in rocks where body fossils are absent), naming (ichnotaxonomy), and uses? I think we should keep the articles "Trace fossil" and "Ichnology" separate (as we have "Palaeontology" and "Fossil" as separate articles). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Both suggestions have been done. I'm fine with cutting out paleogeography, there may be other subsections that end up being removed down the line but thats probably the most blatant. Paleoichnology has also been revamped and now should better reflect most of the field. I left in the details about vertebrate paleoichnology because the book is a fairly comprehensive and important resource and that is the focus, but with the other details added it should be more balanced. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Saratovia (and Garudapterus)

Finished up the article on this new pterosaur, and I figured I'd bump it up to GA so I'm dropping it here first for any feedback. There is no tenable material for a palaeobiology section, seeing as there's not only no relevant literature for this species but none on the palaeobiology of targaryendraconians as a whole, only the historical Ornithocheiridae. I also did the recent pterosaur Garudapterus recently, so I wouldn't mind any feedback on it as well though I don't plan to pursue any higher rating for it at the moment. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice, I will take a look soon. At first glance, in Saratovia, the second paragraph of "Description" is unsourced. In Garudapterus, the deity image is extremely eye-catching and obtrusive; I would almost suggest to just remove that image (or at least put it to the right below the box and make it small), but this is a very subjective and possibly invalid opinion, so it's up to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed the missing citation. In regards to the image, I do tend to have a preference towards having more rather than less images; I've tried compromising with another clear image of a Thai depiction of Garuda that is far less colourful and a little bit smaller. Does it seem better to you? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, much better; the old one was the same red as the animal in the life reco, which was irritating as well; this one has a nice grey. You still have sandwiching with the taxonbox (when in Wikipedia's default view, what most readers see), you can solve that by moving the deity picture one paragraph down. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

If it's one paragraph down it's going to indent the header of the description section, which in my eyes is a far graver issue than sandwiching. Between the options of that, having it all the way down below the taxobox, or excluding it entirely, it's current position is the lesser evil in my opinion (and likewise for Saratovia). LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would simply right-align it, I think that looks best in any case. But GAN is not concerned with such layout nitpicks I think, so it should be up to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I must admit my intense distaste for the standards of image placements on Wikipedia. There's little more on this website I hate like I hate seeing an article with every image lined up on the right, and I find the value lost in not opening the first section with an image quite more egregious than a minor case of sandwiching. I'm sure it'll butcher one of my articles at FAC someday but until then I plan to continue doing things my own way - not that I blame you for upholding rules written by higher power than either of us. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

In Garudapterus, the watermark in the life reco is also a bit problematic because it looks like as if the pterosaur was about to eat something; but nothing to worry about for GA level I think (although chances are that some editor might come along and edit that watermark away). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Garudapterus

• had previously only yielded various body fossils – "Body fossil" has a different meaning (as opposed to trace fossils); you mean postcranial remains here I assume?

Yeah, I thought maybe it'd be a more intuitive term for laymen than postcranial. But I can swap it to that if there's a clarity issue.

Yeah it's just wrong. Maybe just write "bones from the body" instead, and link that to postcranium for extra clarity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• The sockets are slightly elliptical, being wider than tall, as are the teeth, which are more extremely oval in shape – unclear: more oval than the tooth sockets, or more oval than in related pterosaurs? The grammar would suggest the former.

Than the tooth sockets; the paper says the sockets are "slightly" taller than long, whereas the teeth are "quite wider" mesiodistally than labiolingually. Maybe "as are the teeth, which are strongly oval-shaped in cross-section"?

I would simplify to The sockets are slightly elliptical, being wider than tall, while the teeth are more strongly elliptical. Or even this, which might be clearer: The teeth, and to a lesser degree the sockets, are compressed front-to-back, giving them an oval cross-section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Otherwise looks good to me. I did some copyedits. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Saratovia

• Six tooth sockets with partial are preserved in the holotype – partial what?

Partial teeth, I think, but looking at it again there's no real reason to mention them in that setnece; removed "with partial" from the sentence.

• Also did a copy edit. Looks good to me, I think it's ready for GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• I just added some info from this paper to Cimoliopterus on how Saratovia was excluded from being Cimoliopterus, perhaps worth adding here too (there's even an image of the two specimens lined up). FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Dinolandia

Hi! I was directed here by a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs, after I asked for help from editors more familiar with dinosaur terminology to copy edit my new article Dinolandia, which is about an art project and pop-up museum. There's not a lot of species-specific detail, but I'm less familiar with when to use genus vs. common name, singular vs. plural, etc., so I was hoping some editors could do a quick review for any possible text improvements. I've nominated the article for Good status and would welcome any collaboration to make this article the best it can be! Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I just corrected the genus names. Apart from that, I recommend to reduce promotional language (it does not really read like an encyclopedia article); e.g., "swaggering", "impish" – we could do without that. Instead, if you wish, you could add some context, e.g. Velociraptor (small, carnivorous dinosaurs); this should help the reader more than describing them as "impish". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the article improvements and suggestions! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)