Talk:Rebbachisaurus

Picture

In the photograph, the skeleton associated with Giganotosaurus represents the Argentinian species Rebbachisaurus tessonei which is now known as Limaysaurus tessonei. I would suggest to move the picture to the relevant article. ArthurWeasley (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rebbachisaurus in Europe

I've removed a claim that Rebbachisaurus has been found in Europe as well as Africa, assuming that is a misunderstanding because I cannot find any sources for this information except for Wiki clones. Would think it would be pretty noteworthy finding an African dinosaur genus in Europe. To my knowledge this genus has never been found in Europe (only other members of the family have been). Would be neat if it's true but it should have a reference if it is going to be re-added. 2601:342:100:9000:E59B:7B9B:A8A1:B414 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 01:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Suggestions implemented except for the size comparison. I feel like I could make one on my own, I will try. AFH (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds nice. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Put in your most recent suggestions, though I am still a littke confused on how the image sizing works. What is upright parameter? AFH (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Any other notes? @FunkMonk AFH (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Continuing gradually below. Could you write "done" or something like that under finished point to make them easier to keep track of/to see which are new? As for the image sizing, if you look at the first image on the left in Nasutoceratops, the image size parameter says "upright=1.6", which gives it the current size, which will then adapt relatively to any screen. This is the preferred method over the old pixel size forcing, which does not adjust to different screens. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Does the part about image size make sense now? FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This issue needs resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

How does this look? I attempted adding "upright="s AFH (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice, as long as you don't use pixel size forcing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed AFH (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• There are a few WP:duplinks, like tropical and subtropical being linked twice in the same section, and Elrhaz Formation.
  • Done

• There are some more fossils images on Commons that could be useful, as the article currently looks pretty empty (especially under classification and discovery). Not all are great, but two or three of them look like they could be used.
  • Done

• You could request a size comparison image be made at WP:paleoart.

Not required, but could be nice if all dinosaur GAs had this. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Looks good with the new images, remember that pixel size forcing is now discouraged, so instead of "217x217px", you should use the upright parameter to resize thumbnails, like in for example the first image on the left in Nasutoceratops.
  • Done

• " and many neural spines fragments" Should be "neural spine fragments" then.
  • Done

• "The locality in which MNHN-MRS 1958 was found in" One "in" needs to go.
  • Done

• "a seminomadic Ait Atta tribe" could add "Berber" for clarity.
  • Done

• Explain "hypodigm".
  • Done

• Common names of bones could be explained in parenthesis at first mention.
  • Done

• "This skeleton became the holotype of a new species of Rebbachisaurus, R. tessonei, by Argentine paleontologists" Became by doesn't make sense, could say " was made the holotype" or "named by Argentine paleontologists".
  • Done

• "Continental Intercalaire Formation across the Sahara, which then was under the suzerainty of France" All this was already explained earlier.
  • Done

• "on one of these expeditions" Goes without saying.
  • Done

• Considering none of them seem to belong to the genus, "Other species" could be renamed "formerly assigned species".
  • Done

• If R. tamesnensis should even be included in the taxobox, there should be a question mark. But I wonder if it even makes sense to list it there if it's invalid and doesn't belong to the genus.

• Explain fossil chimaera.
  • Done

• "Life restoration of R. garasbae, the type species" don't think "the type species" is needed if it's basically the only species.
  • Done

• "Although thought to have been a large sauropod, possibly 20 metres (66 ft) long[19] and comparable in size to Apatosaurus,[20][8] Rebbachisaurus has been estimated to have only been around 14 metres (46 ft) long and weighed up to 7–12 metric tons (7.7–13.2 short tons)" Why the contradiction? Either give a range or say some have given one estimate, others have given another, as it currently stands it doesn't make sense.
  • Done

• "only been around 14 metres (46 ft) long" "Only" is needless editorialisation. 14 metres isn't short by any definition.
  • Done

• "tall spine" tall neural spines? Tall spine is very hard to decipher.
  • Done

• Exlain pneumatised.
  • Done

• "This is in contrast to brachiosaurids" why this comparison? Many other types of sauropods are just as different, seems random. And do the sources used even use this particular contrast?
  • Done

• More anatomical and other technical terms under Description, such as centrum, zygapophyses, etc., should be explained, check for these throughout.
  • Done

• Technical terms for directions need explanation or just replacement with common terms.
  • Done

• "Additionally, the CPRL (centroprezygapophyseal lamina) and CPOL (centropostzygapophyseal lamina) intersect with the ACPL (anterior centroparapophyseal lamina) and PCDL (posterior centrodiapophyseal lamina)" is there any reason for abbreviating these terms when you never even mnention them again?
  • Done

• While the article seems to be in US English, your measurements are in UK English ("metres" etc.), should be converted.
  • Fixed

• Do we know anything about how the missing fossils were lost?
  • No

• "Bones of Rebbbachisaurus" That's a lot of Bs!
  • I don't see this

It's the caption "Bones of Rebbbachisaurus; humerus (top) and dorsal vertebrae (bottom) from the holotype (A-E) and NMC 50844 (F-G)". You should be able to search for text by holding down ctrl+f if you're on a PC. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This issue needs resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed AFH (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• "humerus of the holotype (top) and dorsal vertebrae (bottom) from the holotype (A-E)" you only need to mention holotype once, last time would do.
  • Done

• My suggestion to rename "Other species" to "Formerly assigned Species" was meant for the section header, not the taxobox.
  • Should I leave how it is now?

Perhaps change the taxobox back to how it was and remove R. tessonei from there. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Done, any more thoughts? AFH (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• • Fixed

• Link dental microwear at first instead of second occurrence.
  • Fixed
• Likewise with carnivorous.
  • Fixed
• Link carcharodontosaurids and ceratosaurs at first occurrence.
  • Fixed
• "however this assignment is not definitive because of lack of overlap with the holotype" instead of this long, disruptive sentence, just say "tentatively assigned to Rebbachisaurus" or such.
  • Fixed
• "Rebbachisaurus was placed in the families Camarasauridae and Haplocanthosauridae" I think the start of the Classification section is confusingly written, and it could benefit from being more specific and chronological. Start with how the genus was first classified and by who, then continue onto later revisions.
  • Fixed
• "Rebbachisaurus is the type genus of the family Rebbachisauridae and subfamily Rebbachisaurinae." Likewise, makes more sense to present the naming of these groups later in chronological order instead of stating it from the beginning, especially since you indicate the subfamily apparently might not be universally recognised.
  • Fixed
• The classification section jumps between giving full authorship names, dates and even nationalities for some revisions, with only last names or less for others. Should be consistent.
  • Fixed
• "Some authors have hypothesized that Rebbachisauridae was divided into two geographic clades: Limaysaurinae" who proposed this and when?
  • Fixed
• "However, Rebbachisaurinae has seen more use by other authors due to its priority over Nigersaurinae." this needs elaboration. Was the former clade named first, or does it have priority because it is based on the oldest genus name? State this explicitly.
  • Fixed
• "Later, Khebbashia, a group including Limaysaurinae and Rebbachisaurinae, was erected as the least inclusive group including Rebbachisaurus, Nigersaurus, and Limaysaurus" by who and when?
  • Fixed
• Split the very long first paragraph of Classification before "The related genus Demandasaurus", as it goes into a different subject there.
  • Fixed
• I'm still seeing non-converted UK English measurements in the intro at least.
  • Fixed
• Link rebbachisaurids at first mention in the intro.
  • Fixed
• "Its vertebrae are very tall and reach up to 150 centimetres (59 in) tall, while those of South American rebbachisaurids get to only around 50 centimetres (20 in) tall." No need to repeat tall the second time around.
  • Fixed
• "This is a group of sauropods with shorter necks, longer tails, and taller backs compared to other families like brachiosaurids." this comparison is now only present in the intro, which should not have unique info. What is the comparison based on? What does the source used say?
  • Fixed

• Changes look good, I have marked some issues above which still need resolution. Then I will move on to a source check. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good, lmk of anything else AFH (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I somehow overlooked the last issues were fixed, I will return with a source check next. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Link camarasaurid at first mention.
  • Fixed

• "If like Nigersaurus, Rebbachisaurus would have a large, square snout." This is not a complete sentence.
  • fixed

Source check

• You're inconsistent in how you format citations. Some have months and days, which is not needed. Some have full author names, others have them abbreviated.
  • LARGELY Fixed, is there a tool for this?

Not as far as I know, unfortunately, I usually fix them by hand. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Has it always been important? Many citations automatically fill out the years AFH (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The important thing is that it's consistent, not which mode you use. Granted, it's more important for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• The Ibrahim and colleagues 2020 paper supports the text here, but there are some details in it that seem important but are not mentioned here, listed below (some statements seem to be different iterations of the same info that somehow contradict each other):
  • Fixed
• "His best-known fossil discovery is the partial skeleton of the diplodocoid sauropod, Rebbachisaurus garasbae".
  • Fixed
• "The figured tooth was found in situ at Aferdou N’Chaft in the Douira Formation, whereas the holotype of R. garasbae was found in the underlying Gara Sbaa Formation."
  • Fixed
• "Articulated skeletons are extremely rare and only include the holotypic partial skeletons of Rebbachisaurus garasbae and Deltadromeus agilis".
  • Fixed
• "The partial skeleton of Rebbachisaurus garasbae appears to be the only associated large vertebrate specimen recovered in the Gara Sbaa Formation".
  • Fixed
• "Articulated skeletons are extremely rare and only include the holotypic partial skeletons of Rebbachisaurus garasbae and Deltadromeus agilis".
  • Fixed
• "In 2025, Mannion and American paleontologist Andrew J. Moore analyzed" Why do you cite their 2025 statement to a 2013 paper? The actual 2025 paper seems to be only cited in the subsequent sentence.
  • Fixed

• Source 37 checks out.

• I can't find mention of lost elements in citation 1 as the article states there were? Otherwise seems to check out.
  • From Wilson and Allain 2015: “The remains, certainly pertaining to a single individual, include:

10 ribs, the right scapula, 11 vertebrae, the sacrum, a humerus, and two bones probably pertaining to the pelvis. They were grouped in a semi-circle within a space not more than 30 m2

the

six postsacral vertebrae were found in series, only tilted back flat” (Lavocat, 1954b:66; translated from the French by R.A.). Several of the bones listed by Lavocat are not present at the MNHN, including four of the six articulated caudal vertebrae, most of the 10 dorsal ribs, and one of the two pelvic bones. A photograph taken during excavation (Fig. 2C) shows serial elements jacketed in plaster that might be the caudal vertebrae or the complete sacrum. The latter was not prepared at the time of the brief description of Lavocat (1954b) and not mentioned in Lavocat (1955). It is not known whether those jackets made it back to the MNHN or if they were opened and prepared in Morocco. A search of the MNHN collections produced a few additional fragments that could be definitively attributed to the R. garasbae holotype (e.g., MNHN-MRS 1476, 1477, 1491, 1728) but no others.

Alright, could you state it more in line with the source, "not present at the MNHN", otherwise it might read like they are definitely lost, when they might just be misplaced? FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed AFH (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Pixel sizes should be good. I requested a review of my size diagram on the dinoart review page as well. AFH (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I still see three images with px, but nice with the diagram and other fixes. I will promote after your next reply. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe this is good. No more "px" in edit mode. I will add the size diagram after it is passed. Is there anything else? AFH (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• The first skeletal diagram still uses pixel size forcing, as do some other images. Find them by searching "px" in the article in edit mode.

• Everything looks good, and will be nice with the size diagram, so I'll promote now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the air sacs in the bones of rebbachisaurid sauropods like Rebbachisaurus may have been an adaptation to hot temperatures?

• Source: https://doi.org/10.4202%2Fapp.00316.2016

• • Reviewed:

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

AFH (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC).

• Starting review--Kevmin § 15:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Article long enough and GA new enough. Article highly sourced, neutral in presentation and following Wp:guidelines. Hook is cite and sourced. Can we work on a less complex way to present the hook though, its premise is good, but it feels to verbose as currently presented. Also, Ibiricu et al is CC-By-4.0 and presets a number of good images that could be used in the article and the nomination here (such as the graphic of the air-sack systems.--Kevmin § 17:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Augustios Paleo: Hello?--Kevmin § 00:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• No interaction here or on other nomination despite pings and editor active on Wiki in other area all days since ping.--Kevmin § 14:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)