Talk:Carcharodontosaurus

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

I want to tell how the dinosaurs really died. 2601:2C5:280:F010:1877:DEFB:4D47:2F55 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideau^talk 19:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I bet his story was a doozy, tho' - oh, well. :-)

"Destroyed" ... How? Why? By whom?

The fossils described by Stromer were destroyed in 1944 during World War II I imagine a bomb dropping on a remote location, which seems far-fetched. The Article would be improved if some additional details could be added. Leaving them out makes it more of a stumbling block and reduces readability.107.195.106.201 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The fossils were housed in a museum in Bonn that was destroyed by Allied bombers during World War II, the same museum that housed the holotype of Spinosaurus.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2021 (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:Carcharodontosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 21:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Greetings once more. Since no-one else has yet, I'll do this GAN review. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! AFH (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria

1. Well-written - in progress... Pass.
2. Verifiable - everything is cited, earwig finds no copyvio, and almost all of the sources are to scientific articles. Pass.
3. Broad in coverage - Pass.
4. Neutral - Pass.
5. Stable - Pass.
6. Illustrated - all images are relevant, well-placed, and appropriately licensed. Pass.

Comments

• The lede section is in excellent shape; my only comment is that it should be "lightly built", not "lightly-built", if I recall my grammer correctly
• And skipping to the Description section: This individual was around 15% smaller than the neotype,[41] the latter has been estimated to be.. "which was estimated to be..."
  • All implemented - August

(I have to run now, but will return to this soon --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC))

• C. iguidensis was much smaller, as it only reachedonly reaching 10 metres (33 ft) in length and 4 metric tons (4.4 short tons) in body mass. And move this sentence to after the next one, so the sentences about C. saharicus being big are all by each other.

• Skulls of carcharodontosaurids tend to be more lithe and lightly built than those of later tyrannosaurids,... Lithe? That's not exactly the word I would use here. Slender might be a better choice. (In my experience, lithe tends to be reserved for living things)

• The neotype cranium tapers anteriorly in lateral view creating a triangular outline in this perspective. Is there a way you can phrase this without using anteriorly and lateral? "The neotype cranium tapes towards the front when viewed from the side, creating a triangular outline."

• The maxilla of IPHG 1922 X46 would have been 70 centimetres (28 in) long when preserved "before its destruction", correct?

• Its jugals are the widest part of the skull and broad and triangle-shaped. What?

• The lower jaw articulation was placed more posteriorly behind the occipital condyle... "farther back behind the occipital condyle", assuming that is accurate.

• Two dentary (lower jaw bone) fragments which were referred to C. saharicus by Ibrahim et al (2020) which possess a deep morphology... and what does deep morphology mean? Deep tooth roots?

• The teeth are the namesake of the genus, the name is apropos to the large serrations akin to those of the shark Carcharodon. You've said this elsewhere, and I don't think it needs repeating in the Description section.

• Dentition of carcharodontosaurs are some of the longest of any dinosaur group... "Carcharodontosaur teeth are..."

• However, dentition towards the back of the jaws became recurved and less straight than those in the maxilla. "became recurved and less straight" sounds like tautology. And is it getting more curved the further back it is in the mouth?

• What does arcuate mean?

• And on to the Classification section! ...Which is pretty much fine.
• Though I don't think you need to clarify that apex predator means top predator. The term shows up often enough in media that most people are probably familiar with it.

• This evincesindicates that the crania of giant taxa (ex. Carcharodontosaurus) were poorly constructed due to... and could you choose a different phrase than "poorly constructed"?

• This is much lower than that of Tyrannosaurus, implying that it lacked an osteophagus diet. "implying that it did not eat bones."

• And Paleoenvironment is fine.

There goes my initial look. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

All implemented. AFH (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I made a few minor grammar and wording changes of my own, and am passing this article now.

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.

Grammar fix!

PyukumukuAce (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@PyukumukuAce please use edit summaries for this cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)