Talk:Siamosaurus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSiamosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 10, 2021.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2020Good article nomineeListed
June 10, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
August 19, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 13, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Siamosaurus, a large bipedal carnivore from the Early Cretaceous of Thailand, is the first crocodilian-like dinosaur named from Asia?
Current status: Featured article

Siamosaurus[edit]

Were does the artical get the specific length of 9.1m for this anmial, as last i hered it only properly known from teeth? That said theres this artical called 'Asian Spinosaur Confirmed' it sais this about the material found 'The cervical vertebrae resemble those of Baryonyx walkeri in many respects (elongation of centrum, articular faces of centrum not offset, large epipophyses, prominent ligament scars). The dorsal vertebrae are similar to those of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, with neural spines which are much taller than in Baryonyx (although not as tall as in S. aegyptiacus). A tooth found with the bones belongs to Siamosaurus, but whether it is from the same individual or is evidence of scavenging remains uncertain.' I dont think that there's much more than that? Whats interesting is that it seems that a spinosaur ansestor must have existed which had tall spines as suchomimus, spinosaurus and now this one described here, all have them. thanks Steveoc 86 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steveoc 86, I know this comment is over a decade old, but that length estimate appears to have come from the "Scholastic Dinosaurs A to Z: The ultimate dinosaur encyclopedia". Found this out while doing research for my WIP draft of the article's expansion (seen here[1] at the start of the description section) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! I have no memory of writing this! What am I waffling on about? Thanks for the info, I usually don't like having size estimates for tooth taxa but I think it's fine in this case because of the cautionary bit afterwards. Great job on the article expansion by the way! Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Siamosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Super Ψ Dro

Hello, I will take a look at the article soon. Super Ψ Dro 17:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! It's a long one so take as much time as needed. Answered comments so far below. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

  • Since you linked 1986 to "1986 in paleontology" in the taxobox, you should do the same for 1975.
Done, and added "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis to the the 1975 in paleontology article table. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot doing it in the taxobox. Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, fixed! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several duplicated links in the article.
Fixed. Had to temporarily remove the lead during editing with Ctrl C, since apparently it's the only way to get the "highlight duplicate links" function to ignore links there. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼

History of research[edit]

  • "Early Cretaceous Period" "Period" should be in lower case.
Done and fixed in the lead as well. Looks like this is a mistake I've been doing in several articles (especially since I usually write stage in lower case)... So I'll be changing that in those pages as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yoshitsugu Kobayashi of Hokkaido University" shouldn't it be "Yoshitsugu Kobayashi of the Hokkaido University"?
Fixed typo. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with these. Definite articles are rarely used with place names unless they contain "of". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at some other articles and yeah, seems to be the case. Reverted the change then. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with "in Khon Kaen Province".
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, see above. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Siam" italics aren't neccessary.
Fixed and wrote Old Greek instead of Greek. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to replace the name "Ancient Greek" by "Old Greek". Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, was a suggestion in Ichthyovenator's FAC to have Old Greek instead of Greek, but Ancient Greek is probably more appropriate I'll agree. Changed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including Si Wiang Dinosaur Park" add "the".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been bugging me for a while now, and seems to be inconsistent between articles (Kentrosaurus doesn't link the species for example while Cetiosauriscus does). So not sure what to do here. Any suggestions from other editors? FunkMonk, IJReid. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I mention full species names, I'd link the whole thing. There is no guarantee a given species will stay in a given genus forever, so only linking the genus is problematic (I know most dinosaurs are monotypic, but that's not always the case). FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Linked full species names then and will do the same for other articles. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move the italics outside the links. Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how they ended up like that. Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referred to as "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis." Since it's a redirect to the article and not a valid species anymore, the link should be removed.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spanish palaeontologists Rubén Molina-Pérez" I have always doubted how to treat names with two surnames in citations, so this point is not necessary, but Spanish names do not usually carry a hyphen between them. This also happens in Hou Lian-Hai, but I don't know if this is valid in Chinese names.
Molina-Pérez is hyphenated in most sources ([2][3], including the cover of the book [4]). It appears hyphens are also valid in Chinese names, as per this source[5], as well as papers and databases his name appears in ([6][7][8]). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the formation by joint Thai-French palaeontological fieldwork" from the formation by a joint Thai-French palaeontological fieldwork?
Don't think this is needed; you wouldn't say "by a fieldwork". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless I think it's awkward to assign nationality to fieldwork. Maybe this should be reworded to talk about the team? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, reworded to "during fieldwork by Thai-French palaeontological teams". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "neural spine", "chevron", "scavenging event"
Done for the first two. I think most people know what scavenging means but reworded it for clarity to "though this could also represent evidence of scavenging." with an added link. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "series of spinosaurid caudal (tail) vertebrae" since "caudal" is an adjective, the explanation could be changed to something like "belonging/related to the tail" or "of the tail" or something like that.
Caudal/s is also a noun though, just like cervical/s and dorsal/s (see Glossary of dinosaur anatomy). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

  • "9.1 metres (30 ft) long" since this is the first measure using feet in the main text, the abbreviation "ft" could be removed.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "255 kilograms (562 lb)" same thing here.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And in 2016" I think this is a somewhat strange way to start a sentence after a period.
Removed "and". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The holotype tooth is relatively straight, with only minor front to back curvature." with only a minor front to back curvature?
Gave it a look. There's 244 Google search results for "with only minor curvature"[9] (some of which are from palaeontological papers) but only 7 for "with only a minor curvature"[10]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the carinae (cutting edges) of Siamosaurus's teeth lack" remove the "s".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Siamosaurus morphotype also shares with Siamosaurus suteethorni, GMNH-PV-999, and IVPP V 4793 a wrinkled enamel surface, and between 12 to 15 flutes on each side." I think a comma should go after IVPP V 4793.
Maybe not needed, the sentence ends up having a jarring amount of comma breaks. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there should be one. I'd remove the comma in "enamel surface, and between", but I know this is serial comma and it's fine if you don't want to. Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed comma as suggested, definitely flows better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested this so that you can include another comma after IVPP V 4793, but the phrase looks better now so it is not necessary. Super Ψ Dro 11:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "matrix".
Already linked and not too necessary for the subject being discussed in this paragraph. I think readers should get a good idea from the "rock" part before anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 5.5 mm (0.22 in) -long gap" why is there a hyphen?
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the fossil's base exposes the dentine, which is covered" earlier you use "dentin" in the first subsection.
Changed to "dentin". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "face of "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis's teeth." remove the "s".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Buffetaut and colleagues most likened the" I never saw this before. Is it correct or a typo?
Correct as per[11]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "sulci".
Linked to dinosaur glossary and changed to "blood grooves", since it's less technical. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification[edit]

  • Link "Spinosauridae".
Already linked earlier as spinosaurid. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fish such as a saurodontid or an" this is a family, right? I think you should then link Saurodontidae instead of saurodontid.
Done, shame it doesn't have an article though... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And in 2012, an analysis" remove the "and".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially common with spinosaurs, given that" since Spinosauridae is a family, replace it with "spinosaurids".
Spinosaurid and spinosaur are interchangeable, but done anyways to avoid ambiguity with "Spinosauroidea" or Spinosaurinae. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pointed out that plesiosaurs have significantly more" remove it with "had" or indicate you are referring to the teeth.
Reworded to be more concise "pointed out that plesiosaur teeth were significantly more recurved". Is this better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a redescription of the genus' validity is currently being prepared by Buffetaut." does this mean that more information will be added to this article? I'm just asking out of curiosity, this will not affect the review.
When the redescription is published, yeah, probably. Unfortunately not sure when it's coming out. Depending on the results of the paper, the "potentially dubious" part of the article lead could be removed as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skeleton from the Gres superieurs Formation of Laos" this should be "Grès supérieurs Formation".
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "member of the subfamily in 2019, their cladogram can be seen below:" I'd use a semicolon here instead of a comma. Also, another question, if Spinosauridae is divided into two subfamilies, why its article doesn't mention Baryonychinae in the taxobox?
Used semicolon. The removal of Baryonychinae from the Spinosauridae taxobox was apparently done due to the fact that its monophyly has been cast into doubt by some researchers (mainly Sales and Schultz), thus making it not entirely accepted within palaeontological circles as an unquestionably valid grouping. Clarified this in the article, since the study was briefly mentioned but lacked detail or the reasoning behind their analysis. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More on that, Lythronaxargestes recently re-added to the taxobox (Note that Suchosaurus and Cristatusaurus were also placed within it afterwards). With a question mark it works quite well actually.[12] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Didn't realize those taxa had also been included in the clade. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. And the rest (Ostafrikasaurus and Camarillasaurus) are basal genera? Asking so I get a bit more familiarized with spinosaurids. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Ostafrikasaurus is the most basal one known (besides possible Middle Jurassic spinosaur teeth from Niger). Camarillasaurus—if it is indeed a spinosaurid—is probably not that basal since it's from the Barremian and shares some similarities with Spinosaurus.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeobiology[edit]

  • "similar to that of modern Gharials." lower case here.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "sauropod".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have employed similar feeding tactics, and been under comparable mechanical constraints" I'd remove the comma.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps explain "ecological niche", but I don't know how common is this in dinosaur paleontology.
It's pretty common, but reworded for a little more clarity to "Therefore, Lauprasert suggested that Siamosaurus—as a piscivorous predator—could have replaced the ecological niche of contemporaneous long-snouted crocodilians." ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoenvironment and palaeobiogeography[edit]

  • Almost flawless section... "between the Ichthyovenator and the European genus Vallibonavenatrix." remove "the".
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article, passing now. Judging by your userpage, you want to nominate this one to FA. I will try to remember to support the article, but if I don't, you can ping me. Congrats! Super Ψ Dro 14:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the kind words and the great review! Will do! Probably putting it up for peer review before FAC; it's a long article so just wanna make sure I'm not missing any potentially big changes. Cheers! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Illustrated tooth of Siamosaurus
Illustrated tooth of Siamosaurus
  • ... that Siamosaurus, a large bipedal carnivore from the Early Cretaceous of Thailand, is the first spinosaurid (crocodile-like) dinosaur named from Asia? Source: "If future discoveries confirm this attribution, Siamosaurus suteethorni will be the first spinosaurid to be reported from Asia" (Buffetaut and Ingavat, 1986)[1] - "Later spinosaurids are characterized by significantly smaller and more numerous denticles (Baryonyx), or unserrated carinae (Spinosaurus), the Asian forms such as Siamosaurus suteethorni from the Early Cretaceous of Thailand" (Buffetaut, 2012) - "The Spinosauridae is an enigmatic clade of large and carnivorous theropods" & "the morphology of the skull and teeth in particular are similar to those of extant crocodilians" (Hone and Holtz, 2017)

Improved to Good Article status by PaleoGeekSquared (talk). Self-nominated at 13:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article GA expansion and status new enough. Hook is cited and sourced. no policy issues identified with the article. Neutral in tone. image is main page appropriate. However there are multiple citations that are either not defined or multiply defined and need sorting..--Kevmin § 22:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PaleoGeekSquared, with the ref fixes everything looks good to go now.-Kevmin § 04:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Buffetaut, E.; and Ingevat, R. (1986). Unusual theropod dinosaur teeth from the Upper Jurassic of Phu Wiang, northeastern Thailand. Rev. Paleobiol. 5: 217–220.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siamosaurus&oldid=1208429409"