Talk:Cetiosauriscus

	Cetiosauriscus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 28, 2020.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 12, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed January 23, 2014 Good article nominee Listed September 8, 2018 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

Palaeontology Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Dinosaurs Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

As a last note, the petition of Charig (1993) was done under Article 70b (misidentified type species). 68.4.61.237 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Upchurch and Martin (2003) could find no characters support referral of Cetiosaurus glymptonensis to Cetiosauriscus and considered it a distinct taxon of diplodocoid requiring a new genus name. Whitlock (2011), however, has taken a conservative position by assigning C. glymptonensis to Eusauropoda incertae sedis because he feels that the available evidence is insufficient to confirm the diplodocoid position of this taxon. Furthermore, Cetiosauriscus was recovered as a non-neosauropod eusauropod by Rauhut et. al. (2005) in their phylogenetic analysis of Brachytrachelopan. Ornithopsis greppini clearly represents a non-neosauropod eusauropod distinct from Cetiosauriscus (Schwarz et. al. 2007) but has not yet been given a new genus name.

Rauhut, O. W. M., Remes, K., Fechner, R., Cladera, G. & Puerta P. 2005. Discovery of a short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic period of Patagonia. Nature, 435, 670–672.

Schwarz, D., Meyer, C. A. & Wings, O. 2007. Revision of Cetiosauriscus greppini – new results and perspectives. Pp. 57–58 in J. Le Loeuff (ed.) Fifth Meeting of the European Association of Vertebrate Palaeontologists Abstract Volume, Muse ́e des Dinosaures, Espe ́raza, France.

Upchurch, P. & Martin, J. 2003. The anatomy and taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23, 208–231.

Whitlock, J. A. 2011. A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 161, 872–915. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Cetiosauriscus/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review is coming. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear here is still a lot of work to do before reaching GA. This dinosaur is poorly known, and little has been published. This means that it is absolutely necessary to include most if not all of the few studies that have been published. There are important studies that are not included yet, so the article is partly outdated.

• "C." greppini and "C." glymptonensis are not species of Cetiosauriscus, I think this is out of question. "The Dinosauria" only lists the type species, as does the taxonbox and the "Invalid species" section of the article. Schwarz et al.^[1] (one of the studies that need to be included) states that C. glymptonensis has nothing to do with C. but is basal to Titanosauria. Everytime you mention "C." greppini you have to put "C." in quotationmarks.
• Considering that only C. stewarti is a valid species, we come to a bigger problem: The fossilized cartilaginous tissue also has nothing to do with Cetiosauriscus because it was discovered on C. greppini fossils; therefore it is out of place in the section "Description", since this section is supposed to describe Cetiosauriscus only.
• same for the bite marks in Paleoecology
• possible solution: move that information to the Invalid species section, that should be greatly expanded to provide abundant information about the other species as well.
• Most of "Discovery and naming" is sourced with Charig (1993), but I cannot find most of this information in that source. You even write "This was done in 1995" but use the 1993 paper as the source.
• Metacarpal 1 is short and massive, with the prominent process on the lower part of the posterior margin of the lateral face, a characteristic of the diplodocoids Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, Cetiosauriscus and Dicraeosaurus – I cannot find this in the source.
• The section "Vertebra" (shouldn't it be "Vertebrae"?) reads like random information from an detailed osteological paper. Why are these anatomical details notable, and everything else not? What vertebrae are described? Cervicals, Dorsals, Caudals? I mean, the holotype of C. is a pelvis if I recall correctly (that information should also be included). But there are only the sections "Vertebra" and "Limbs".
• It differs from Barosaurus in having a less complex sculpting laterally and ventrally in the caudals; in having a smaller humerus-femur ratio; and in having differently developed chevrons.[7] – again, I can not find this in the cited source!
• Cetiosauriscus is diagnosed by axially concave summits on the cranial and middle caudal neural spines.[2] – You cite von Huene (1927) here. He mentioned quite a lot of characters, but not this one.
• another important study that should be included: ^[2]
• there is a nice informative overview in Gluts "Encyclopedia of dinosaurs".^[3]

I have to abort the review and fail the article for now, mostly because several of the sources do not contain the cited information. I strongly encourage you to keep working on the article and resubmit it when its ready. I can also sent you the sources I mentioned (except Heathcote & Upchruch 2003, we will need to ask in the Wikiproject Resource exchange for this one). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References