Talk:Aublysodon/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ucucha (talk · contribs) 10:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. As an initial comment, shouldn't the taxobox make clear that Aublysodon is a nomen dubium, instead of suggesting that Aublysodontinae is an accepted tyrannosaurid subfamily? Ucucha (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most people who know have noticed this is up for GA, I'll notify the dinosaur project. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though Carr and Williamson (2004:481) say that they consider A. mirandus a nomen dubium because the type is lost, on my reading of the paper I didn't notice them saying them explicitly discussing the assignment of the type tooth to Daspletosaurus, which you cite them for. Ucucha (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the citation for the identity of AMNH 3956 (A. lateralis)? Molnar and Carpenter (1989) do suggest it is Dromaeosaurus; where does the juvenile tyrannosaurine come from?
Carr and Williamson (2004) do not mention either Aublysodon amplus or A. cristatus. On the other hand, Molnar and Carpenter (1989) say they are the same as A. mirandus.
Several other identifications of the miscellaneous Aublysodon species lack references, but these interpretations certainly need to be sourced.
The partial skeleton from New Mexico referred to Aublysodon in 1990 is actually Bistahieversor, isn't it?

Ucucha (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two and a half weeks since the above. I see a pair of edits to the article on June 21, and nothing since. What's the status of this review? Has there been any significant progress? BlueMoonset (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it. I'll close this review; perhaps my comments will be useful to future editors. Ucucha (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was kind of a drive-by review it seems, no one was actually working continuously on the article at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I expanded the article recently, but only now discovered this discussion! The review by Ucucha is very perceptive. The Carr & Williamson (2004) references, I more or less left intact as I found them, not having read the entire paper. If they do not reflect its content properly they should certainly be changed. The "juvenile tyrannosaurine" interpretation of AMNH 3956, I adopted from Mortimer's analysis given on his website here: http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Tyrannosauroidea.html#Aublysodonmirandus Generally, I am hesitant to cite websites, even when of such high qualitative level as Mortimer's, but the apparent correctness of his judgement in this case seemed to make it necessary to at least mention the alternative. I was aware that some specimen referred to Aublysodon was later referred to Bistahieversor but failed to check it; again, a quick look at Mortimer's site shows me that this was indeed OMNH 10131, the exemplar in 2004 referred to Daspletosaurus. Of several species I gave no reference for their present identification because it would be too trivial — but in a GA such references should certainly be there. Of course, as I made clear above, I'm not really interested in GAN and FAN processes, though a contribution as intelligent as that of Ucucha would almost change my mind!--MWAK (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if you've addressed those concerns, it should fulfil the GA criteria now, or what? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]