Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop

Ceoptera

Dropping this here as a pass before putting it through GA review. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think we have classical WP:Peacock issues: its discovery is considered to be significant; The discovery was considered significant; the Kilmalaug specimen was considered to be important to pterosaur research; The discovery of Ceoptera and other darwinopterans around the world is considered to be important evidence of the success of the group. That's persuasive writing and not how we should write in Wikipedia; we should rather provide the facts and let the reader reach their own conclusion. These fillers do not really add anything. Also, if we need a sentence that evaluates the relative importance of this taxon, we obviously need a secondary source for that (the species description is biased in this regard). Instead, try to write fact-based, something like "The early evolution of pterosaurs is poorly known … Ceoptera is one of only few pterosaur specimens from the Middle Jurassic", and based on this, the reader should be able to decide whether it's important or not.

Fair enough, I've tried to reword those to be more objective.

• a group intermediate between early rhamphorhynchoid and later pterodactyloid pterosaurs – that's ambiguous: A group intermediate between early rhamphorhynchoids and pterodactyloids could be "late rhamphorhynchoids".

I don't think that's reflective of how darwinopterans are presented in the literature. They're not seen as "late rhamphorhynchoids" but distinctly as "a link between the two classic divisions of pterosaurs". So I think changing this would both be unhelpful and also inaccurate to the sources.

You misunderstood. Your sentence is ambiguous and could be interpreted one way or the other. Just remove the word "later" and it's good. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• Will have a look at the rest when time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Took a while to get to this, but ready to handle some more feedback now whenever you get the chance. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

One reply above, will look at the rest soonish, but looks very solid! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• and in a 2022 academic preprint – but that's just an early version of the JVP paper, right? A reader might assume that this is a distinct work, which it is not. I would just remove this. A preprint can also not be cited since it is not a reliable source, and if no reliable source mentions the preprint, it is not relevant anyways.

Removed.

• This fauna is noted for its similarity to – I suggest simply "This fauna is similar to"

Changed.

• You show one photo of a dinosaur track that shows the rather poor track of a theropod and a smaller feature that the image caption claims is the "smallest" known track, but I would be extremely careful here (it does not really look like a track to me to begin with). Not sure if this claim has been published in a peer-reviewed paper, but if not, consider replacing the image. There are very nice free images here.

Google indicates Guiness has since recognized a smaller print, so nobody appears to claim this as the smallest one today. I've changed the caption on Commons to remove this claim, and otherwise I don't believe there should be any issue. I think the current image is more aesthetically striking than any from the paper would be.

• @LittleLazyLass: Apart from these points, all looks fine to me – unless you plant to submit to FAC, in which case I could probably a longer list of nitpicks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I will likely submit it to FAC eventually, but do not have immediate plans. I will probably submit it to GAN, but that's a big wait right now.

• Like below, a restoration could be requested? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Can be requested, but no telling whether or not anyone would step up. I'm not too bothered either way because it seems externally indistinguishable from Darwinopterus anyways'.

Sinocephale

Dropping this here as a pass before putting it through GA review. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• something followed by later authors – do you mean "followed by some later authors"?

  Fixed by Junsik.

• The "92 Ma" in the taxonbox is unsourced and not repeated in the text.

  Ah, a misreading of the paper on my part. It says "post 92ma" but I misinterpreted that as "92 ma". Junsik has fixed this and put a note in the text.

• being given a unique generic name – to make the article more comprehensible for a lay person, I would avoid yet another technical term and instead write "being given its own genus, Sinocephale" or something.

  Fixed by Junsik.

• In default desktop layout, the cladogram is cut off. You could move the Zavacephale picture somewhere else to solve that.

  I've gone and removed the Zavacephale, as it was mostly just space filler.

• and narrowing to the small region – can't follow here; what small region?

  This is referring to the back part of the parietal that forms the parietosquamosal shelf, but I agree it's ambiguous. Reworded slightly.

• "parietosquamosal shelf" and "posterior shelf", is that the same thing? If so, you say the posterior shelf is not distinct, but apparently there was some sort of shelf?

  Ah, I see how this is confusing. "Posterior shelf" is being used by the paper to refer to the undomed back of the skull. In some taxa, the dome goes all the way to the rim of the parietosquamosal shelf, whereas in others like Stegoceras the dome leaves some room behind it. The terminology is somewhat interchangeable in the literature, so it can be confusing. I've reworded it to avoid the term "posterior shelf" altogether.

• primitive – better avoid and say "basal (early-diverging)"

  Fixed by Junsik; I've added the link.

• In The Dinosauria David Weishampel ascribed the rocks to the Minhe Formation – We have an article on The Dinosauria which you could link to, and also say it's an encylopedia, and provide the year since there are two editions. I bring this up because you refer to Weishampel but you cite Maryanska, so something is wrong here.

  Ah, I think I must have reused my existing Dinosauria reference without thinking despite citing a different section. Seems to have been fixed by Junsik.

• I see we are short on images here but the one in "Paleoecology" seems barely relevant (another taxon, another locality); how does it help the reader to understand the article?

  The Sinocephale locality is not identified in the image, but it would be somewhere within the highlighted area of China in the corner map. Maybe could use a better caption?

If it's just for the locality, you could also use a simple location map (such as the one in Ulansuhai Formation). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• wp:engvar is inconsistent; what spelling variant are you aiming for?

  I am quite bad with English consistency... given Stegoceras uses Canadian English, and Sinocephale was redescribed by a Canadian palaeontologist through a Canadian institution in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Canadian English would seem most appropriate. I've adjusted the ones that stand out to me, but might need help identifying any others.

In that case, you could place {{Canadian English}} on the talk page and {{Use Canadian English|date=November 2025}} to the top of the article to make this clear (as it is not obvious) and to stop editors from changing it back and forth. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Specify language for the etymology? (should be Gr. kephale "head")

  Fixed by Junsik.

• Very nicely written overall, I just have a few minor quibbles after a quick read-over. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Junsik1223 has, helpfully, dealt with some of these for me. Responding here to the rest. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like this could be a good contender to request a restoration or other diagram for? FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Actiocyon

Bringing this here for help with the Description section and overall just a second look before I hopefully try a GAN. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• In 1938 Robert Leard collected – Any info who that was? Is it possible to introduce him with one word, e.g., occupation?
• The main issue for GAN might be WP:MTAU. Especially the most important terms in the description could do with some explanation and background. Terms like "junior synonym" are not linked nor explained.
• Jon Baskin, while writing the chapter on Procyonidae for a book by Cambridge on Tertiary mammals in 1998 – "by Cambridge"? Cambridge is not an author. This is excessive detail anyways I think; I would just write "in a book chapter" if anything.
• included both in the clade Simocyoninae in "Ailuridae or Unnamed Group" – can't follow
• The 2016 description of A. parverratis unambiguously considered – how can a single study "unambiguously" consider something?
• a complete review – who says the review was "complete"?
• The 2025 review of ailurid taxonomy – this implies the review has already been mentioned before. Has it?
• I did copy edits, but I didn't check any sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the copy edits, they all look like improvements to me. I have attempted to act on all of your comments now. Thank you! SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Probrachylophosaurus

Just finished expanding this, could use some eyes on it. Will probably push to copyedit and GAN after it's done here. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Nice! Not sure if I manage to read the whole thing; sadly, I barely have time for Wikipedia at the moment. I will comment on the lead for now. For GAN, I think there is room to improve the writing and to make it more accessible for lay readers:

• large herbivorous brachylophosaurin hadrosaurid dinosaur – that's four attributes in a row, you want to much at once here. I suggest to go with "is a genus of hadrosaurid dinosaur" and specify the rest later.
• I would maybe reformulate the first sentence like this: Probrachylophosaurus is a genus of hadrosaurid dinosaur that lived during the Late Cretaceous in North America. Fossils have been found in rocks of the Judith River Formation in Montana and the Foremost Formation in Alberta, and date to the Campanian age, c. 80.45–79 million years ago. This way, we de-cluttered the first sentence and give hints (such as "rocks", "age", and the mya range) to help the reader guessing the meaning of the terms and improve understanding.
• The type (and only named) species is Probrachylophosaurus bergei – "Type" is not linked here. For the lead, I would simplify to "The only known species is Probrachylophosaurus bergei" and keep the technical detail (type species) for later, if it is needed at all. I mean, it doesn't really add to the understanding, it's mostly one additional, difficult term the reader has to deal with.
• Both an adult and subadult specimen are known – This confuses me a bit. Does it mean there are just two specimens known in total? Or should it be "specimens" in plural?
• and fragmentary remains would later extend its known range into the Foremost Formation. – Additional remains? This now is ambiguous: Have more fossils be found later, increasing it's known range, or did it increase it's range later in the Campanian? I suspect you mean the former, but it's not entirely clear I think. Maybe just and fragmentary remains have later also been found in the Foremost Formation?
• to the highly distinct genus – not a strong point but I would remove the "highly distinct", as it is not clear what this means without any context, this is something to mention and discuss in the main text.
• that walked on four legs – not sure we can definitely say it couldn't move bipedally; add "mainly" or "probably"?
• link "display" to Display (zoology)?
• The only known specimen possesses several injuries, including a series of fractured tail vertebrae that may have been damaged by interactions with other hadrosaurs. – You were mentioning several specimens earlier. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)