Talk:Proceratosaurus

Type

Uh, guys? The article cites Proceratosaurus as a tyrannosauroid. However, Dougal Dixon's World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures lists it as a carnosaur! Who is correct? And yes, Dixon is as precise with the term "carnosaur" as we are. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Proceratosaurus has been moved around a lot, but Carnosauria is almost certainly incorrect. According to several 2010 papers (and the Paleobiology Database) Proceratosaurus is the type taxon of the Proceratosauridae, a family of the Tyrannosauroidea. The Dinosauria states that P. bradleyi is "known only from a single incomplete skull", so I'm not sure the new family name will ever become widely used, but the Wikipedia article appears to be correct (although the citation could be updated). Firsfron of Ronchester 12:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Nominator: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 12:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Will get to it later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks, tagging collaborators Hemiauchenia, A Cynical Idealist, IJReid. The intention is to continue to FAC, I think there is some more that could be added to some sections, but I'll look through that later. In the meantime, feel free to suggest any additions you can think of. I wonder if everything that could be added from the German sources have been... FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Add etymology of the genus name (what does "pro" mean and what language)? You could cite Creisler here: That same source could be used for the pronounciation (which is currently unsourced).

I just added it myself, assuming that you do not object. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oliver W. M. Rauhut – It seems that MOS:NAME suggests to omit initials in this case, and I also think that would make it nicer to read.

Never saw that, and I usually include them, but removed here. But doesn't this mean we should remove the S. from Gregory S. Paul and similar? Almost seems odd, since some people are mainly known from their names including initials. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that, according to the policy, "Oliver Rauhut" and "Gregory S. Paul" are both correct, as this is how these names are commonly written. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• a large external nares (bony nostril) – "external nares" is plural. And wouldn't the dinogloss be a more suitable wikilink destination here?

Sure, and this article needs to replace the current links with links to the Dinogloss in general. Will try to take care of that if no one beats me to it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• and the skull is very pneumatic – does not fit with rest of the sentence

No longer in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• the complete crest of Proceratosaurus probably being larger and more similar to its close relative Guanlong – more similar than what? Larger than in Guanlong?
• and this fenestra is also surrounded by a large fossa (depression) extending onto the surrounding skull bones. – but that's the case for any theropod; here it sounds as if it were a characteristic feature, I found this misleading. I suggest to either specify something specific about the fossa, or remove it.

The fossa is part of an autapomorphy of the species, so I've added that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• has an "inverted egg-shape" – optional: for FAC, it is safer to re-phrase rather than quote (which would need author attribution in any case).
• The partially preserved orbit (eye socket) has an "inverted egg-shape" and is marginally taller than long – I am confused here; the upper part of the orbit does not seem to be preserved, so how can it be measured, or is the "6 cm" an estimate (if so, it should be stated)?

Clarified, attributed directly to the paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• bear the partially preserved base of a crest, which when complete, like other proceratosaurids, likely formed a large pneumatic (air-filled) crest – Grammar: The base of the crest formed a large crest, that makes no sense. Also, it should be "like in other proceratosaurids", or?
• which in life may have been covered by keratin. – delete "in life"; not needed, and the keratin would still be there immediately after death.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• retroarticular process – needs to be explained

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• elongate mandibular fenestra (opening) – should link to mandibular fenestra, not fenestra

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• serrated – link/explain

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• posterior – link/explain

Posterior is a commonly used and understandable English word whose meaning I think is obvious from context, unlike its counterpart "anterior", which is only used in technical anatomical contexts and would need to be explained to the reader. I don't think explaining is necessary, though I can link to the anatomical terms of location article if you insist. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. As a non-native speaker, I have a poor idea about which terms are easy for natives and which are difficult. I take your word. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• ziphodont – link to dinogloss

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• hyoid bone – maybe link to dinogloss instead? Also explain what it is, since you have a whole paragraph on it.

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• again mainly because of the crest on the nose – You never mentioned that Huene placed it close to

Ceratosaurus because of the crest, and you also didn't mention that the crest was thought to be restricted to the nose, if I recall correctly.

• However, no overlapping bones between the two had yet been exposed from the rock around their fossils, and future study showed that they were indeed distinct. – So this means that overlapping material now exists? Can this be specified?

Condensed and simplified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Isn't the Proceratosaurus divesensis content about taxonomy and should be under "History of discovery" rather than "Classification"?

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk)

• leading to the giant tyrannosaurs of the Late Cretaceous – two wikilinks needed

Done, clarified as "tyrannosaurid". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• cladogram – link

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The article fails to mention how the genus is distinguished from related genera? Also, you mention that von Huene gave a diagnosis; it might be worth giving one or two examples of features here, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Gave Huene's diagnostic features. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Optional: There are some sources with long page ranges (e.g., 15, 25); for FAC, these would need more precise page numbers, by using rp-templates or similar.
• Taxobox: Add "Middle Jurassic" to the temporal range, as we do in other articles?

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The study of the general biology of Proceratosaurus is somewhat limited by the lack of any post-cranial remains. – The article uses many fluff-words such as "general" and "somewhat" (in other places also "rather") that do not really add anything. "Any" is superfluous here, too. Also, it should be "postcranial" (without hypthen) and you probably should link (we have a standalone article) and explain the term.

Cleaned up this specific sentence and some others. Let me know if you have any more in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Proceratosaurids were small-bodied animals, in sharp contrast to the tyrannosauroids of the Late Cretaceous. In spite of this, they possessed many of the key adaptations which would come to define the large tyrannosaurids of later periods. – Please simplify: you first talk of "tyrannosauroids of the Late Cretaceous", then about "large tyrannosaurids of later periods", that's confusing as it isn't clear whether or not you are referring to the same taxon.

Fixed to refer to tyrannosaurids. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• "puncture-pull" feeding strategy of derived tyrannosaurids – just to check, are you possibly meaning "tyrannosauroids" here or is this a third group (derived tyrannosaurids) you are introducing here?

Clarified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• "puncture-pull" feeding strategy – I think you should explain that

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• They added muscles to these model skulls – one model skull or several? This is contradictory.

Clarified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Their model for Proceratosaurus – again, you introduced a composite model, not a model for Proceratosaurus?

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• The jugal bone is generally not part of the cranial musculature of most dinosaurs – Since bones are not muscles, they should not be part of the musculature; not sure what you mean here.

Removed as I didn't understand what this was about either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• For FAC, better place "hypothethical" in any image caption showing a life restoration, and link restoration to paleoart.
• Late Bathonian age – subages are not capitalised

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I suggest to avoid the technical term "strata" ("rocks" is totally sufficient as replacement)

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• during the Bathonian period – Bathonian is an age, not a period

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Analogous assemblages of vertebrate microfossils have also been found at other localities of similar age,[22] including the Kilmaluag Formation on the Isle of Skye, Scotland, considerably further to the north, whose microvertebrate assemblage shares numerous species with the Kirtlington Fauna, though more completely preserved.[32] – I would say this goes off-topic now.

I've condested this and moved the mention of the Scotland stuff into the first paragraph where we are discussing faunal interchange where it is more relevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• In the "Palaeoenvironment", you do not state whether the fossil would have been from terrestrial or marine sediments. Does the Great Oolite Group include any terrestrial sediments?

  The GOG is almost entirely marginal/shallow marine to paralic but there are small beds like the Kirtlington mammal bed which were deposited in coastal swampy conditions, which I suppose counts as terrestrial. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we could state this explicitly? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we cite von Huene 1926? After all, that's the paper where the name Proceratosaurus comes from. Some other papers that are mentioned in the article are not in the references as well. I acknowledge that WP-wide policy does not require to cite papers directly as long the information is covered in a secondary source, but in our case in palaeontology, I think it makes sense and is helpful to cite the primary ones in addition (we do it in all dinosaur FAs, after all). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Done, cited both papers which hopefully covers all bases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• That's all, hope that helps to prepare for FAC, too. I also did a copy edit: . --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• with similarities between terrestrial animals found in the Great Oolite Group of England and those from the equivalently aged Great Estuarine Group of the Isle of Skye in northern Scotland – I would say this goes off-topic and could be removed.

I've revised this and quoted the specific context. The context is that many of the terrestrial animal species found in the Kilmaluag Formation (part of the GEG) of northern Scotland are literally identical to those in the GOG, indeed it seems the assemblages of small vertebrates are nearly identical (though less diverse at the Kilmalaug Formation, though it isn't clear if this is a true signal or just collecting bias). I think that's relevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Proceratosaurus was recovered from marine oolitic limestone deposits – sentence seems misplaced, better discussed where the depositional environment is mentioned.

Moved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• The manner of deposition was primarily by slow-moving bodies of water in a coastal or near-coastal alluvial or lagoonal setting, which was periodically interrupted by high-energy events like floods, which are reflected in the geological record of several localities. – Again, looks misplaced, better discussed together with the depositional environment.

I've removed this as I am unsure of the context (I didn't write it), and replaced it with a more generic comment about oolite deposition in the GOG given the uncertain stratigraphic context of Proceratosaurus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Large terrestrial vertebrate remains have also been found in the Great Oolite Group. – Since the next sentence starts with dinosaurs, this seems to be a superfluous filler and can be deleted.

Removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• The "Contemporary fauna" lists the marine invertebrates first, following by dinosaurs, then other reptiles, then mammals, and then other reptiles and amphibians. Shouldn't the marine invertebrates come last, and the dinosaurs first, since they are the most relevant here?

Moved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Before FAC, the article could do with another copy edit for prose and consistency. For example, you introduce Greg Paul as "the paleontologist", but he is already mentioned much earlier but not introduced. Some other paleontologist are not introduced as such, so this seems inconsistent. Try to reduce the amount of little things like these. (As a side note, I am not sure if we need to say that somebody is a paleontologist as this is what the reader would expect in an article about a dinosaur; the last discussion on this at FAC that I read came to this conclusion, at least).

Did a copyedit introducing all of the paleontologists and their nationalities in the correct place in the article. That said I am happy to remove the paleontologist description if there is consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I did another copy edit to parts of the article , but we are getting close now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good now, I am promoting – congrats to all authors! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 1 May 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.

Did you know nomination

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 Juxlos talk 01:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Proceratosaurus is one of the oldest tyrannosaurs?

• Source: https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1096-3642.2009.00591.x

• • ALT1: ... that despite its name, the dinosaur Proceratosaurus is only distantly related to Ceratosaurus? Source: https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1096-3642.2009.00591.x
  • Reviewed: N/A

Improved to Good Article status by Hemiauchenia (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC).

• Nominated within a week of GA promotion and requires no QPQ. Extensively sourced, clearly meets all standards of basic quality. Source seems to support both hooks. Personally, I think that the alternate hook is more interesting and I'd recommend it, but the base suggestion is also acceptable. Everything looks in order so I'm passing this on. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)