Talk:Kryptops/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 00:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Kryptops is a genus of abelisaurid theropod dinosaur – simplify first sentence. Too many links in a row (wp:seaofblue). Maybe remove "abelisaurid" for now, since you introduce it later in the lead anyways.
• in reference to evidence that the face bore a tightly adhering covering. – you should specify the type of covering (fur? feathers? skin? I think its a keratinous covering)
• the type species is K. palaios, which means "old". – The specific name of the type species means "old", not the type species.
• postcranial remains – link (or, better, avoid for the lead)
• abelisaurid, a group of medium-sized, basal ceratosaurian theropods – are abelisaurids really basal within Ceratosauria?
• highly serrated – what does this mean? The denticles were high?
• and funded by National Geographic – National Geographic Society, I believe, not the magazine
• returned to fossiliferous sandstone outcrops – why "returned"? Have they been there before? If so, that should be mentioned.
• Tenere Desert – apostrophs missing
• when paleontologist Rafael Delcourt argued that due to the chimeric nature of the holotype – but you said earlier that the holotype is only the maxilla, and the postcranial remains are referred specimens.
• The validity of Kryptops entirely came into question in 2018, with paleontologist Rafael Delcourt arguing that due to the chimeric nature of the holotype and occurrence of only one valid autapomorphy (derived trait), Kryptops is a nomen dubium.[12][13] – This is the last sentence in the "Discovery and naming" section; so is this the last word? Seems information is missing? What is the current view point?
• The holotype individual is large, – large compared to what? Also, you need to say "was" large, not "is" large, certainly.
• 15 centimetres – be consistent whether you abbreviate or not (m, cm, mm). Use the cvt template instead to make this easier (e.g., {{cvt|5|cm}}).
• missing the distal portion of the ramus – what "ramus"? The anterior ramus? If so, just say "the maxilla is missing its tip" or something, no need for jargon.
• some of the alveolar (tooth hole) margin – needs a better explanation ("the upper edge of the maxilla that supports the tooth sockets" or something like that)
• Check Dinogloss links. "Lateral" has no entry there, needs to be linked to Anatomical terms of location. (You can avoid the instance you linked, "exterior" is enough)
• is extremely rugose and textured – what is the difference between "rugose" and "textured"?
• proximal – check link. You should also explain this term, since you explain dorsal and ventral (which you should link in addition).
• medial – same
• though it certainly belongs to a basal abelisaurid ceratosaur. – the phylogenetic position belongs to a basal abelisaurid makes no sense (make sure "it" refers to the intended word)
• still slightly elongated skull features – no idea
• the postcrania is – here, and elsewhere: It is a single individual, so should be "postcranium" in singular; there are not multiple postcrania.
• whereas the Kryptops is classified – the Kryptops what?
• Below is the phylogenetic analysis conducted during the description of Viavenator in 2016 – authors?
• Kryptops, along with Rugops, is one of the earliest-known members of Abelisauridae according to several phylogenetic analyses and its age. – Early age and basal are two separate things. Phylogenetic analysis establish what is basal, and age establishes what is early, but not the other way around.
• short, robust characteristics – can't follow
• Description section: Can the genus be currently diagnosed, or not? This does not become clear. You seem to mention only one autapomorphy, but then state that it was also present in Rugops.
• megaherbivores – link
• Other herbivores from the same formation include Ouranosaurus, Elrhazosaurus, – so you think these are not megaherbivores, too?
• fish, a hybodont shark – sharks count as fishes.
• fix citation errors in ref list.
• I suggest to remove the "See also" section. The portal is in the talk page, and the Timeline articles are deprecated and not maintained anymore and may be deleted eventually, if I remember correctly.
• General note: There was a huge number of minor issues, which I tried to catch during an extensive copy edit. Looks like you are using Visual Editor, which introduces a bunch of the more minor formatting mistakes. Also, for faster review time at your next nomination, I suggest that you try to copy edit the article carefully before nominating, to avoid as many of the sorts of issues I listed above as you can. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: considering that the postcranial elements are now not thought to belong to this taxon, I'd move the skeletal diagram out of the taxobox and put the maxilla image there instead. The skeletal could then go under Discovery and naming or Identity of postcranial material, where I think it's more relevant than a random photo of Paul Sereno. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  Implemented AFH (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Augustios Paleo: It has been two weeks, are you still on it? Thanks --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry I have been focusing on improving other pages, recently. Yes, I will implement these suggestions now. AFH (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  all suggestions now implemented. AFH (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Great! But it seems you missed a few (e.g., the cvt comment or the linking of megaherbivores)? Please check, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.