Talk:Carsosaurus

Carsosaurus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 21, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance Carsosaurus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Carsosaurus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the only known specimen of the Cretaceous lizard Carsosaurus contains preserved embryos? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carsosaurus.

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You should state it's a mosasaur Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done

• I think it's good enough to say skin instead of epidermal in the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done

• Instead of varanid, you can say monitor lizard Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done

• "According to the Paleobiology Database, C. marchesetti remains the only identified species of the genus" you don't need to include this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Removed

• "anterior cervical vertebrae" you should specify which cervicals are unknown, and mention this is in the neck Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's mentioned further down, but I added more detail. I also added your second suggestion.

• Mention caudal vertebrae are in the tail Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done

• You can't use convert templates inside parentheses because they display the conversion inside parentheses, so you end up with double parentheses Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed

• "due to the its post-cranial features" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done

• "researchers proposed that" surely they have names Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Added names.

Dunkleosteus77, I've replied to your comments. Is it better now? An anonymous username, not my real name 21:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Check google scholar if you can find more relevant sources. I found https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1796 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I used that both that one and another I just dug up. It should feel a little more fleshed out now. There are a few passing mentions of Carsosaurus in other sources, but they don't provide any new information. The exact taxonomy is still largely unclear. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Komensaurus belongs in Paleoecology, the section which should include creature Carsosaurus lived alongside Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your point, but that source's mention of Carsosaurus focuses heavily on its murky taxonomic status, so it seems most logical to include it here, especially since there it doesn't go as far as to say they lived at the same time.

The only part of the mention of Komensosaurus in the article relevant to Classification is "Carsosaurus has been a nomen dubium since its description." The Komensosaurus paper has a detailed classification history of aigialosaurs, including Carsosaurus, which I think should be incorporated here. Komensosaurus and Carsosaurus both lived in Cenomanian Slovenia so that would make them coeval. Paleoecology should give us a general background of the world of Carsosaurus (ie Cenomanian–Turonian Slovenia), including creatures it would've likely come into contact with, but do make note if they do not come from the same formation Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of the section about classification history mentions Carsosaurus specifically, and it would probably be more appropriate in other articles. I did do the other thing you mentioned.

The only thing you should really be saying about Komensosaurus in paleoecology is that they are both aigialosaurids found on the Karst Plateau during the Cenomanian, not how similar they are. Also, is there no other creature from this area and time? No fishes, sharks, other reptiles, crustaceans, plants? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking a minute, but your two comments appear to contradict each other. I have included the full original line in classification because the fact that they are from the same area and time period is part of their similarities and relative to the confusion surrounding classification, but I've also kept a brief mention in paleoecology. Furthermore, I have listed other species from the area and time.

Komensosaurus shouldn't be in the Classification section as you can say the exact same thing about any other aigialosaurid. It's quite self-evident that the describes of Komensosaurus concluded their taxon is similar to Carsosaurus hence they classified it as an aigialosaurid, and that it is different than Carsosaurus hence it is its own genus Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your point. I hope it's okay now.

• "allowing their evolution into massive, fully aquatic mosasaurs" I think you should add when this happened for context Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done

Hey, @Dunkleosteus77:, it's been a little while, so I'm pinging you in case you didn't notice my comments. An anonymous username, not my real name 18:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been really busy this week, I'll see if I can continue tomorrow Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I understand. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]