Wikipedia:Peer review/Megalneusaurus/archive1

Megalneusaurus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

After having dealt with two other articles on rather famous pliosaurids, i.e Kronosaurus and the "Monster of Aramberri", I have now taken it upon myself to tackle the case of a little-known giant, Megalneusaurus. Although represented by incomplete fossils, I believe that the article covers the subject in its entirety and deserves to be given an FA in the future. However, before proceeding with such an operation would be only for a GA, it is already necessary to review and answer personally regarding a small uncertainty that arises in the article by Wahl et al., (2010). Indeed, this article seems to present details that I could not fully cover regarding paleobiology and certain points of the anatomy of the animal's fins. This is why I am calling on the following users to remedy this (you are not all obliged to intervene, however): FunkMonk, Slate Weasel, Jens Lallensack or Macrophyseter. I thank in advance that quinconce begins the review via one of its users. Thanks, Amirani1746 (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FM

I'll have a look soonish after I finish another review, will add some preliminary comments first. I also think an article like this with a more limited scope would be fitting for a first FAC experience. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk It seems that the tail in DB's illustration is apparently too long. Changing the image is therefore necessary... Amirani1746 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a good reference for its length? FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, the most recent sources cite that the animal's size should not exceed 10 m in length. Zhao (2024) is in my opinion the best current source describing this. Amirani1746 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mean the relative length of the tail, what animal would be similar enough to base the proportions on? FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk As I mentioned in my article, the holotype vertebrae of Megalneusaurus have been lost since the last century, and this notably includes the caudal vertebrae. However, given that the genus is regularly compared with Peloneustes, I think we can base the tail reconstruction on this figure. Amirani1746 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the tail by half accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty accurate, although at the moment we can't really determine the actual length of this animal's tail. Thanks for your work FunkMonk. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way FunkMonk, I would also like to take this opportunity to inform you that I have abandoned the editing of the article on the related genus Brachauchenius, and that the rest of this project is now entirely yours, being already very busy with my own. Amirani1746 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but no rush either way, it's not near the top of my list, so I wouldn't be surprised if you got interested again long before I even consider working on it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bunch of WP:duplinks which can be highlighted with this script:[1]
Are there really no more images available? Kind of a shame. Perhaps a skeleton of a close relative can be shown under classification to show how it may have looked?
Should probably specify in the caption of the life restoration that it's hypothetical and based on related genera. If it needs any anatomical corrections, let me know.
Could state in the caption of the old illustration that it's from the original description, with year.

I'll continue when Slate is finished below so we don't make the same points. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slate

I'll have a go at reviewing, been meaning to start doing article reviews again. What exactly is your question about Wahl et al. (2010)? I'll post a review of the history section below momentarily; my plan is to go through the article section by section then review the lead. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Knight spent about 30 days in the field with Stewart, before being left with two other men to return home" - I'm not entirely sure what this means - it seems to imply that Stewart left the field while Knight stayed behind, when the source seems to indicate the opposite?
"the fossils of a partially articulated but incomplete skeleton" - this phrasing seems somewhat odd, but that might just be me. Personally I might change it to something like "the partially articulated but incomplete fossilized skeleton"
"who lent him tools a wagon" -> "who lent him tools and a wagon"
"urging his two colleagues he had previously met" - are these the two men from the first bullet point? It's somewhat ambiguous who the colleagues he'd previously met are here
"Describing this decision as theft," - I think "action" would be more appropriate than "decision" here
"addressed respectively to Henry Fairfield Osborn and to a certain J. M. Garett" - would be good to give some context about who these people were, as was done for Knight, Cope, and Stewart. Also, why is Garett described as "a certain J. M. Garett"?
"The fossils first unearthed by Knight have since been sent to the University of Wyoming, where they have since been catalogued as UW 4602." - is this just the pliosaur or also the aforementioned shark?
"These concerns" -> "These consist of"
Flipper can be linked to Flipper (anatomy)
It looks like the journal that paper that named the species was published in was branded as just Science rather than Science Magazine
"Knight was uncertain about the generic positioning of the specimen" - since "generic" means something different to the average lay person, it might be better to phrase this as something like "Knight was uncertain about what genus the specimen pertained to"
"which he judges according to his words to be" -> "which he judged to be"
Might be good to mention that Casper is in Wyoming for context
"The place corresponds to the Redwater Shale Member" - "corresponds" seems to imply that the unit it was found in is not actually the Redwater Shale, whereas the papers seem to indicate that the specimen did come from this unit
"was exhumed and made official in an 2007 article" - what does "made official" mean here?
"In 2008, it was a fully articulated and almost complete forelimb coming directly from the holotype specimen which was exhumed," - could be simplified to "In 2008 a fully articulated and almost complete forelimb from the holotype specimen was exhumed"
"and it is described in detail in 2010" - should be "it was"
It should be explained what a neural arch is
"In 2003, Richard Ellis reported that Robert Bakker should re-examine the holotype specimen in more detail, something that has apparently not been done since." - why Bakker in particular? Also, this chronologically takes place after the relocation of the type locality, so having it at the end of the third paragraph is somewhat odd. Additionally, multiple papers describing the holotype are cited in this paragraph, contradicting the last part of this sentence
"Megalneusaurus was then historically only known from Wyoming, but another specimen referred to the genus was discovered in southern Alaska." - the use of "then" doesn't really make sense here; it seems like this sentence could be rephrased to something a lot simpler, such as "In addition to the material from Wyoming, a specimen assigned to Megalneusarus is also known from southern Alaska."
"a certain Jack Mason" - again, why is "a certain" used here? It would also be good to provide some context about who Mason was, if available
"a same large bone view as an humerus" -> "the same large bone viewed as a humerus"
It should be explained what the USNM is
"The stratigraphic unit to which this specimen was discovered" - "to" should be "in"
"corresponds to the Snug Harbor Siltstone Member" - again, was the Smug Harbor Siltsone the unit it was found in, or just a stratigraphically equivalent unit?
"another species or to the type species" - it's kind of awkward that "another species" is listed before "type species"; additionally, since the average person won't know what a type species is, it would be better to just say M. rex here, I think
"but considered the bone to be a simple partial propodial" - was it not already considered to be a propodial? Additionally, what does "simple" mean here?

Hopefully this was helpful; in general I'd recommend checking your grammar and simplifying your phrasing when possible; it might be good to request a copyedit at WP:GOCE prior to nominating for GA/FA. I'll try to do a review of the description section tomorrow. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for starting the review Slate Weasel, before we jump straight to the "Description" section, I'd like to start focusing on my issue with the Wahl et al., 2010 paper and correcting the few errors in the "Research history" section. To start with the Wahl et al., 2010 paper: as you might expect, I had to fill the article with a lot of descriptive elements coming directly from your work on Peloneustes (researchers often make comparisons with this latter). However, given what the article describes, it seems that I still have two ambiguities to correct. The first is the paleobiological function (especially swimming) of the animal, which is described in detail on pages 177-178. Given the many elements present, it would seem that there is something to add. The second problem is the anatomy of the flippers. Although I think I've covered the subject in the "Description" section, I don't think I've added enough diagnostic elements for this to be the case. Since you are an expert and you control these subjects much better than I do, I think a little help from you would be welcome.

Now let's tackle the few issues I haven't been able to fix (yet):

Concerning J. M. Garett and Jack Mason : While writing this article, I have found absolutely no viable information leading to these two mysterious individuals. This is even worse for J. M. Garett, as I have not found any full names.
About stratigraphic positions : Regarding the inaccuracies regarding the Redwater Shale Member and Snug Harbor Siltstone, this simply stems from my lack of developed knowledge of geology. I'm not sure whether the fossils were located in these areas, or whether they were simply exhumed from some geological bed. On this point, I admit I could definitely use some help.

Cordially, Amirani1746 (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications on the Wahl paper, I'll keep those in mind while reviewing those sections. Looking at the sources, it doesn't seem like there's much said about Garett other than that he was from New York; with Mason, it looks like Weems & Blodgett mention that he was a prospector. With the stratigraphic data, members of formations are not precise areas, rather, they're packages of strata with similar characteristics spread out over an region (for example, Peloneustes fossils are known from various sites, all from strata that is part of the Peterborough Member of the Oxford Clay). Additionally, some issues I do still see in the description section:

"before being left with two other men to return home" - this wording is still strange, it makes it sound like Knight tasked Stewart with returning these men home
"urging his two colleagues he had previously met to help him with this task" - again, are these two colleagues the unnamed men Knight left him with? It's still ambiguous who they are, since both Knight and Cope were previously mentioned, and, presumably, colleagues of his that Stewart had met.
"the attention of Megalneusaurus by paleontologists has generally been "forgotten"" - this is phrased kind of strangely, perhaps something more like "Megalneusaurus was mostly ignored by paleontologists" or "Megalneusaurus was mostly "forgotten" by paleontologists"?
"The place is located to" -> "The site is located in"
"Richard Ellis reported that Robert Bakker should re-examine the holotype specimen in more detail" - again, why Bakker? This makes it sound like Bakker was tasked with this redescription by someone (also, there's an extra comma after this clause)
"Fossils coming possibly from two other specimens have also been reported" - is "possible" qualifying that these remains are from two other specimens or that these remains are from Megalneusaurus? It currently sounds more like the former
"neural arch (posterior part of a vertebra)" - the neural arch is the top/posterior part of the vertebra, not the back/ventral part
Megalneusaurus should be italicized in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph.
"described this fossil in detail to which they referred it to the genus" -> "described this fossil in detail, referring it to the genus"
"they refer it under the name Megalneusaurus sp.," - should be "referred" since this took place in the past
"whether the specimen would belong to" -> "whether the specimen belonged to"
"but considered the bone to be a imprecise partial propodial" - I'm assuming that it was the identification that was imprecise, not the bone itself? Might be better just to say something like "but were uncertain whether it was a humerus or femur"?

Hope this helps. Also, please feel free to respond to individual bullets when making changes/asking questions about that particular bullet; it makes it a bit easier to keep track of things. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel, I think I've fixed most of the issues mentioned, but I'll be very honest: I have absolutly no idea why Ellis (2003) cites Bakker as revising this taxon in the future, especially since he wasn't the one who ultimately revised it. I think Bakker (even if my theory is unfounded), being more interested in dinosaurs, would have left his revision project to contemporaries like Wahl, for example. Amirani1746 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source, it looks like Ellis was reporting that Bakker was working on a redescription; the current phrasing (mainly the use of "should") seems to imply that Bakker wasn't doing so but Ellis thought he should. Also, I realized I screwed up with the neural arch definition, it should be top or dorsal, not top or posterior (posterior would be back), sorry about that. I've added comments on the description section below. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Megalneusaurus belonging of this latter category" -> "Megalneusaurus belonging to the latter category"
"Like all plesiosaurs, however," -> I don't think "however" is needed here
"femurs" -> "femora"
"The majority of the anatomy of Megalneusaurus is only known from the holotype specimen and concerns only the postcranial parts of the animal, no cranial materials being known." - this phrasing is a little awkward, maybe "The majority of the anatomy of Megalneusaurus is only known from the holotype specimen, which preserves only the postcranial parts of the animal, with no cranial materials being known."
"In addition, additional parts" - not technically wrong but sounds somewhat repetitive, maybe swap out "in addition" for "furthermore"?
Personally, I'd suggest moving the information about parts of the specimen being lost to the history section, or at least mention it there
"the vertebrae of Megalneusaurus are twice as long as they are wide" - Knight lists the centra as being over two-thirds as long as wide, not twice as long as wide. Might also be good to mention that this is about the centra (vertebral bodies) in particular, and their proportional heights
"having neural arches that are sutured together" - from my understanding, it seems that Knight was stating that in each cervical vertebra, the arches are attached to the centrum via a suture rather than fusion, as opposed to the neural arches all being attached to each other
"The coracoids are long and wide, being produced at the glenoid fossa of the scapula." - I do not understand what "produced" means here, looking at Wiktionary, perhaps it means "drawn out"? Might be better to say that instead, if the case
"The anterior flippers has phalanges that are hourglass-shaped, while those at the back are flattened" - the source seems to indicate that the hindlimb phalanges are also hourglass-shaped? Furthermore, the forelimb phalanges also seem to be described as flattened?
"The metacarpals, metatarsals, and phalanges tend to vary in cross-section." - how so?
"The number of phalanges in each digit is unknown in both the fore- and hind limbs" - the source seems to indicate that manual digit I is completely preserved though?

Overall with the description, I think that it could be expanded significantly more based on Wahl et al. (2010). Since the limbs are the main thing this animal is known from, I think it would be appropriate to go into more detail when describing them than it would for something like Peloneustes. Some things that I can think of being worth mentioning include: measurements (such as estimated limb lengths), the overall shape of the limb, information on the morphology of the propodials, the configuration of the carpals and tarsals, the configuration of the phalanges and relative lengths of the digits, and the articulations between the phalanges. Sorting the information so that general information is discussed first, then information on specific parts of the limbs going from the proximal ones to the distal ones would also be nice. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments, Slate Weasel. Indeed, most of the misunderstandings you point out simply come from the fact that I didn't go far enough in describing the swimming paddles of Megalneusaurus (A little help on the expansion would be welcome btw). On the other hand, regarding the last remark, I firmly maintain my sentence that I borrowed from Peloneustes, because manual digit I seems indeed incomplete in view of the presence of a bone fragment attributed to it (see Table 2 of Wahl et al., 2010). Amirani1746 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to manual digit I, Wahl et al. (2010) state: "Digit I is complete, although the distal phalanx is very poorly preserved" - from my understanding, they're saying the distalmost phalanx is apparently recognizable as a terminal phalanx, just not complete enough to measure properly. As for the expansion, I'd recommend trying to expand the description since this sort of thing is best learned through experience; I can definitely provide feedback on it or try to answer questions though. I've left some comments on classification below. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed all the problems that you have once again cited to me Slate Weasel, except the last one, from where I have found absolutely nothing that indicates the very nature of the thesis, and this despite the free source. Amirani1746 (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"However, this classification was deliberately provisional" - should be specified that this refers to the classification of Megalneusaurus as Cimioliosaurus, rather than Cimoliosaurus as an elasmosaurid
"because the fossils were at that time unprepared to allow the specimen to have taxonomic clarification" - this is pretty awkwardly phrase, maybe something more like "because the fossils were not prepared enough at the time to allow the specimen to be precisely classified"?
"not hesitating to compare it to the pliosaurids Pliosaurus and Peloneustes" - "not hesitating" is kind of odd here, even if it wasn't a pliosaurid, why would he hesitate to compare it to two taxonomically significantly and moderately to very well-known taxa?
Why is the comparison to Plesiosaurus included in a footnote rather than prose?
"would most likely be a pliosaurid" -> "was most likely a pliosaurid"
"French paleontologist Marie-Céline Buchy appears perplexed" -> "French paleontologist Marie-Céline Buchy was perplexed"?
Nondiagnostic should be one word or hyphenated
"Two years earlier, Even before" - "Even" shouldn't be capitalized
It should be specified in the citation what degree Buchy's thesis was for (Master's, PhD, etc.) if possible

I've left some comments on paleobio below:

"although their origins have not been formally determined" - I don't think "formally" is needed here
"preys" -> "prey"
"ascent too quickly" -> "ascending too quickly"
"It is nevertheless uncertain to deduce the depth to which the animal would have descended because it is also possible that the avascular necrosis would have been caused by a few very deep dives, or by a large number of relatively shallow descents" - A few things here: "nevertheless" is somewhat odd phrasing, as it didn't seem to be implied that this level of precision was possible; "uncertain" doesn't really fit the sentence here; and the second part seems to list possibilities that would cover basically all scenarios but is prefaced with "also". Maybe change to something like: "It is uncertain how deep the animal would have descended, as the avascular necrosis could have been caused by a few very deep dives or by a large number of relatively shallow descents."?
"during the lifetime of plesiosaurs" - probably better to say "during the lifetime of the plesiosaur" here since this seems to be about one particular individual
Optional: "penetrating the bone" -> "penetrating each vertebra"

With regards to Wahl et al. (2010), I definitely think the information on swimming could be expanded in the article here, including joint flexibility (or lack thereof), how the limbs were reinforced, and how the limbs would have been moved during swimming, for example. Hopefully this was helpful, will try to do paleoecology tomorrow. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Amirani1746 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Sundance Formation represents a shallow epicontinental sea known as the Sundance Sea." - "represents" is kind of an odd term here, perhaps "was deposited in" would work better? I realize I used the same wording on Tatenectes, I'll change this there
In the Alaska section, "territory" is a bit of an unusual term to describe a paleoenvironment, perhaps "region" or "area" would be better?
Terrane should be defined
"located in cooler or even colder waters than in the Sundance Formation" - "cooler" and "colder" basically mean the same thing in this context
"Paleobiota also include" - I think this should be "Paleobiota also includes"? Might also be good to include some context, such as "The paleobiota of this unit also includes"
Listing "fish fossil debris" as part of the paleobiota strikes me as somewhat odd; not sure if this is technically incorrect but "fossil debris" describes the preservation, rather than the kind of organism present. Maybe change to just "fish"?

I'll go over the lead and the remaining parts of the article tomorrow. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. Amirani1746 (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the lead:

"known from several specimens mainly identified in the Redwater Shale Member" - maybe swap out "identified" with "found"
"due to the measurement of the fossils of the holotype specimen" - this could probably be simplified as "due to the size of the first specimen"
"incorrectly described nature of the fossils" - was Knight's interpretation of hindlimbs as forelimbs specifically a reason Megalneusaurus was regarded as dubious? If it is, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article
"one of the largest known North American pliosaur" -> "one of the largest known North American pliosaurs"
"four flipper" -> "four flippers"
Not sure if the entirely hypothetical skull length is worth including in the lead; more about the animal's known anatomy could be added in its place
"although it is not excluded that it would have attacked and fed on contemporary plesiosaurs" -> "although it could also have fed on contemporary plesiosaurs"
"further north of the continent" - was the Alaskan fossil site actually north of North America? Regardless, this wording implies that the Sundance Sea in Wyoming was north of North America, which is incorrect
"although the fauna is less diverse" -> "where the fauna was less diverse"

Misc.:

What's the citation for the numeric age range?
Perhaps the paleoecology section could feature an image of some contemporaneous organism from the Sundance Formation, such as Pachyteuthis, Tatenectes, or Baptanodon?
When taking this to GAN and especially FAC, consistent formatting of names in citations is important; right now you have at least two formats (First Last and Last, F.)

Comments on sections from before:

History: "a certain J. M. Garett" - why is this name preceeded with "a certain"?
History: My comments about the phrasing of the sentence about Bakker still stand
History: Looking at Wahl et al. (2010), it doesn't actually seem like they question whether the Alaskan specimen is a humerus or femur, they just refer to it with a more general term
Description: "The number of phalanges in each digit is unknown in both the fore- and hind limbs." - as mentioned above, this contradicts the cited source
Classification: Do Wahl et al. (2010) actually "cite several distinctive features that maintain the taxon's validity"? It doesn't look like they provide a diagnosis and their discussion of how the animal's anatomy compares to other pliosaurids is pretty minimal
Paleoecology: "even colder waters than in the Sundance Formation" - "even" implies that the Sundance Formation was deposited in cold waters, which doesn't seem to be the case?

Those are all my comments on the article for the moment. Overall, prior to nominating for GA/FA status, there are a couple general things I would recommend. First, as mentioned above, both the description and paleobiology sections require further expansion. Second, the phrasing in much of the article tends to be more complicated than necessary and the verb tense is sometimes incorrect. I've brought up multiple examples of these issues in my comments above but this is not exactly my specialty; I'd recommend getting the article copy-edited to help with this. Hopefully these comments have been helpful, --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've corrected/done the vast majority of the things you asked me to do. However, regarding the age, I based it on the dating indicated by other Wikipedia pages. Amirani1746 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the numerical ages, the ICS chart can be used for a source: [2]. With the sentence about Bakker, I didn't mean it had to be removed, just that it should be rephrased to make it clear that Ellis reported that Bakker was studying on the specimen, rather than making it sound like Bakker wasn't studying it and Ellis told/commanded him to. I missed this before, but additionally, page ranges should be provided whenever Ellis (2003) is cited, since it's an entire book. The phalangeal count issue still seems to be unaddressed. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel, page 188 already indicates the source of Ellis (2003). For the rest, i will see what can i do. Amirani1746 (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In hindsight, I'm not sure where I could quote Ellis's line, since Bakker's intervention seems so out of nowhere that it wouldn't fit into the "Research history" section unless he got proper training (which I don't think I'll do). Amirani1746 (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the ICS source you gave me is an updated version of the source for a table found in articles like Acamptonectes and Peloneustes. the precise datings do not even match exactly. Amirani1746 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the page citation for Ellis (2003), sorry about that. With the GTS, it's not uncommon for it to be updated, so the exact numbers may change between versions. I'm not sure what you mean about the lack of "proper training" (Bakker was definitely properly trained); it seems like a mention of Bakker studying Megalneusaurus could go in the third paragraph. Additionally, I know you mentioned reasons for considering the phalangeal count for manual digit I unknown, but the source explicitly says: "Digit I is complete, although the distal phalanx is very poorly preserved." This cannot be contradicted in the article without violating WP:OR. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've now corrected all the points you gave me. However, for ICS, I had to take the 2015 version in order to be consistent with other articles using it. Amirani1746 (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One minor quibble: it looks like Wahl et al. (2010) list a phalangeal count of 5, not 6, for manual digit I. Otherwise, I think I've said all that I've wanted to; I'll turn the review over to FunkMonk now. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I have some FAC reviews to finish before I continue here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]