Talk:Arundelconodon/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: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 00:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• the last of which was considered noteworthy, – does that mean the others are not noteworthy?

  The exact language used is One noteworthy feature of the dentary in Arundelconodon is the presence of a meckelian groove. I think this is a pretty fair way to paraphrase the statement.

• The distinguishing features are expected in the "Description", not in the "Classification" section. I would also recommend to elaborate on them; what structural features of the teeth? Ideally, try to summarise the "Diagnosis" section of the first description, stating that these features are used to distinguish the taxon.

  Agreed that this is kind of vague and weasel-wordy. I clarified some, but I deliberately left the nonspecific phrase "the size and shape of its cusps" because it would be impossible to explain the specific details of this statement without almost directly quoting the source and going into copious detail that will be unlikely to aid the average reader. If the reader is an expert who wants to know the specifics, then the source is there for them to read.

• an interlocking system between molars – such things could be explained in the "Description" section, it is not clear what that means without some context.

  Context given; it is still rather dense, but I gave as much explanation as the source provides.

• The presence of remains of various groups known from both marine and terrestrial environments – this contradicts the statement Aside from the hybodonts, which were likely tolerant of saltwater and consequently widely distributed that implies that hybodonts are the only group found at the site that is tolerant to saltwater.

  Unfortunately, this discrepancy exists in the source too. Biologically, the vertebrate fauna of the Arundel supports a near-coastal origin for the deposits. Hybodont sharks and goniopholidid crocodylomorphs dominate the fauna, comprising some 58% of specimens. Although the salt-tolerance of goniopholidids is unknown, hybodonts were likely diadromous, as teeth and spines from this group are regularly found in both marine and terrestrial deposits (e.g., Fischer, 2008). A comparison with roughly contemporaneous terrestrial formations from western North America shows that the Arundel far exceeds the typical relative abundance of chondrichthyans for the Aptian-Cenomanian (Figure 7). The Arundel has at least one species of Ceratodus, a genus known to occur in both terrestrial and nearshore deposits (Schultze, 1981; Kirkland, 1987; Frederickson and Cifelli, 2017). Indeed, many of the groups represented in the Arundel assemblage, such as hybodonts, crocodilians, and ceratopsians, show affinities for coastal settings in other rock units and yet It is worth noting, however, that except for the sharks (which probably were salt-water tolerant and hence broadly distributed), all taxa identified to the species level are endemic to the Arundel... I think the easiest way to reduce the confusion is to change the wording of the "marine and terrestrial environments" to just say "coastal environments" (thus allowing for the preservation of the interesting bit about endemism.

• The deposits may represent a facies (a geologic group with consistent characteristics) – this is not a helpful definition of "facies". I do not see why you need this term here to start with, just write "The deposits belong to the Potomac Group".

   Done

• The inside of the jaw possesses an anatomical feature known as a Meckelian groove. – This sentence is not very helpful if you do not say what the relevance, or function, is. Later in the "Classification" you do, so I think this sentence is superfluous.

   Removed

• The species name, hottoni – It is actually the specific name; the species name would be the entire binomen.

  Good catch.

• When discussing the name, it might be worth mentioning that the Arundel Clay is named for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, which is named after Anne Arundell? Otherwise the reader has no idea where "Arundel" is coming from.

   Done (I hope it's not too much detail, but I also wanted to give the reader some reference for the historical significance of Anne Arundell and her connection to Maryland)

• It is known from multiple dental remains – only two, right? If so, why not say "two" instead, which is more specific?

   Done

  Actually, now I remember why I wrote it that way to begin with. The second set of remains found probably are just different pieces of the same jaw, but it isn't impossible that they belonged to different animals. Therefore, I think it is preferrable to not give an exact number.

• The lead is a bit too short and should say something about anatomy, too.

  I squeezed in an extra sentence describing exactly what the remains consist of (but isn't much specific information about them that can be briefly summarized in a non-technical way).

• Its discovery supports the idea that the mammalian fauna of North America remained consistent throughout the Early Cretaceous, perhaps dating back to the Jurassic, – can't find that in the source (but I might overlook it); is it source 1?

  Recent work on dinosaurs has suggested continuity of terrestrial faunas of North America, Europe, and the gondwanan continents of Africa and South America until nearly the end of the Early Cretaceous [...] evidence from the mammalian assemblages of Argentina suggest a prolonged period of endemicity, perhaps extending to the Jurassic [...] the new taxon from the Arundel Clay shows no evidence for a hypothesized faunal tie with Europe or the southern continents. It seems I slightly misparaphrased it, as both the Jurassic period and mammals are only specifically mentioned in reference to South American, not North American, fauna. I changed the wording somewhat. Saying it "supports the idea" may be a bit overly generous, but it still reads much better than "fails to oppose" (which sounds rather confusing).

• That is all. A solid, well-written little article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, I've made some improvements. If you have any refinements, feel free to share. — Anonymous 22:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, looks good. I did some copy edits, please check. Promoting now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:08, 17 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.