Talk:Paralititan

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

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 00:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• In 2001, an international crew made up of paleontologists Joshua B. Smith, Matthew C. Lamanna, Kenneth J. Lacovara, Peter Dodson, Jennifer R. Smith, Jason Charles Poole, Robert Giegengack and Yousri Attia – I think that author list is overkill. I would just stick with "Joshua B. Smith and colleagues".

• Paralititan represents the first tetrapod reported from the Bahariya Formation since American paleontologist Alfred Romer's publication of 1935. – What did Romer report? And shouldn't it be "named" or "described" rather than "reported"?

• The limited material, especially the long humeri, suggested that it was one of the most massive dinosaurs ever discovered, with an estimated weight of 59 t (65 short tons) – Who made that suggestion?

• In the Size section, I think you should make clear what estimates come from scholarly literature and which come from popular books; that's a difference the reader needs to know. Alternatively, remove the popular book references (as less notable for speculative information).

• The second proximal caudal vertebra – do you just mean "the second caudal vertebra" or something else?

• The scapula has a medial (towards right) concavity – "towards right" makes no sense because the scapula can be a left or right one. Use "inner" if accurate.

• The upper region of the cranial (exposed) – "cranial" does not mean "exposed"?

• On the proximocaudal (towards body-back) surface of the distal end of the humerus – Even I are confused here; proximal or distal? Please formulate in plain language.

• The autochthonous, scavenged skeleton – explain or avoid the term autochthonous. Also, you did not yet mention it was scavenged.

• containing in the form of fossil leaves and root systems – can't follow

• The bone layer of water – What?

• Additionally, the associated nature – the associated nature was not previously mentioned.

• walked over to the site where the fossils were found before its death. – You can't mean this in the literal sense? What do you want to say?

• now referred to – as we had in previous reviews multiple times, use "assigned" instead, since this is jargon that a general reader might not understand.

• and lost its tooth there – really lost, or just shed?

• You present the 2022 results of Vila and colleagues (Saltasauridae classification) as fact in wiki-voice. However, it is still only a singular opinion, and possibly highly uncertain. You should make that clear in the article, such as by using author attribution throughout.

Spot check

• Paralititan bears a prominent tabular process on the caudoventral (rear-bottom) part of the scapula underneath the glenoid process. – Not really what the source says. The glenoid is a socket, not a process, and only the humerus should be "beneath" it.
• The upper region of the cranial (exposed) surface of the humerus bears a muscular depression. – "Muscular depression" is what the source says but it is unclear to me what this means, better explain in your own words, also to avoid close paraphrasing.
• Lengthy supracondylar ridges for articulation extend over 1/3rd of the humerus' length and border an extensive olecranon fossa – This now is WP:CLOP and need to be reformulated. Try to explain it slowly for the general reader.

Copy edit

• I also made an extensive copy edit to speed things up a bit: --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  all suggestions implemented. Thank you for your copy edit. What is the criteria of what you change for copy edits? Also, do you have any more suggestions? AFH (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  In my copy edits, I do everything I can do to improve the language, fix grammar errors, formatting issues, obvious inaccuracies and so on. Your GAN nominations usually require a lot of reviewer work, as there tend to be many language issues. Whenever you receive a copy edit, I highly recommend to review it, to try to understand what was changed and why (and if the change was even right), and remember it for your next article. It's a great chance to improve your writing. Also, if you are unsure why I made a particular chance, I am more than happy to explain it. I now reviewed your changes and there are three follow-ups below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Revisit

• The layer of water where the Paralititan fossils were found was likely shallow – this still seems to confuse the sediment layer with the water level at the time of deposition. Your sentence says that the fossils were found in a "layer of water", which is of course not the case. You could write something like "The layer in which the Paralititan fossils were found indicates a shallow water environment.
• In 2020, researchers Rubén Molina-Pérez and Asier Larramendi – Could you explain what makes this a reliable source for size estimates? We just had that discussion today for Allosaurus, and the WikiProject consensus was to not use it. Unlike Greg Paul's popular book, this one is not widely cited, has apparently no proper book review, and appears to be mostly for children.
• On the lower proximal surface of the distal end of the humerus – isn't "distal" redundant with "lower" here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

suggestions implemented. thank you very much. AFH (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)