Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siamosaurus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2020 [1].

Siamosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on a mysterious genus of semiaquatic dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of what is now Thailand. If it passes review, it will be Wikipedia's fifth spinosaurid FA, probably our longest article on an animal known only from teeth, and the second FA on a dinosaur tooth taxon after Dromaeosauroides. Though fragmentary in nature and potentially dubious, hope you'll find this an interesting read and a good example of how much we can glean about ancient life from even the tiniest pieces of fossil material. Comments and suggestions very welcome. Thanks in advance! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review. Incredible how much that can be written about a bunch of teeth. Looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing, maybe it's an overstatement to say "Annotated skull diagram of the closely related Spinosaurus", considering their distance in the cladogram? FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, PaleoGeekSquared, might be in order to notify projects or ping potential reviewers about this nomination, since it is getting a bit far down the list... FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, hadn't even realised this had been here for one and a half months already, probably due to the length and technical nature of the article. - perhaps Casliber, Lusotitan, or IJReid would be willing? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Lythronaxargestes and Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My hands are a bit tied with Mosasaurus but I'll see what I can do... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi. I'm not familiar with palaeontology articles, but approaching the subject from a Thailand viewpoint, I wish the History of discovery section would provide a bit more background to help place the fossil within the context of the early discoveries from Phu Wiang during the 1980s–90s. I understand that S. suteethorni was the first ever dinosaur species described from Thailand? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, if it was indeed the first dinosaur genus named from Thailand (the species but not genus "S." fusuiensis was named before at least), I think it would also warrant mention in the intro. And if fusuiensis was the first species named, that would of course also warrant mention, but we can only do this if there are sources that state it outright. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"S." fusuiensis wasn't from Thailand, though? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point again, I guess my mind got confused after the articles were merged a while ago. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the naming dates of all other Thai dinosaurs and this does seem to be the case; the first bones discovered were of Phuwiangosaurus, but Siamosaurus was the first formally named. I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to locate sources explicitly stating this though, the best I've been able to find is that Siamosaurus is the first reported spinosaurid, which is what is already in the lead and article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:Siamosaurus suteethorni model.jpg and File:Siamosaurus suteethorni sculpture Phu Wiang Dinosaur Museum.jpg are marked disputed accuracy at Commons.
Since I was the one recommending to tag them as such, I might as well explain. Images tagged as anatomically inaccurate are still usable in sections about historical or cultural significance. They are not to be used in other sections, though, unless to specifically illustrate outdated ideas. Also pinging PaleoGeekSquared, have you seen the comments above? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other images are correctly sourced as appropriate and available under a free license. buidhe 07:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

Impressing article, so much for a few teeth!

Look like it's been quiet here for some weeks so many thanks for the review! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • palaeontologists Rubén Molina-Pérez and Asier Larramendi in a 2016 book – I think we have to be more careful with selecting reliable sources. See my points on this particular book here, would be great if you could provide your thoughts there.
I agree that such books, unless cited or mentioned in the scientific literature, are best reserved for uncontroversial info. I've read the Theropods book myself and it seems to have some very speculative or questionable content, such as the section on the running speed of various extinct theropods and dinosauromorphs. I think the size estimates can probably be kept though as long as there's not that many others available and its clarified in text what the type of source is, which I've just done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The size estimates may be an edge case and I do not have a strong opinion on that. But I fear that systematic decision regarding Siamosaurus? fusuiensis that this book made has to be removed. It is not really relevant since it has no bearing on science (it is not a book that can be taken serious and be cited by scientists in the first place). The theropoddatabase, the personal website of Mortimer, is another difficult case, maybe a bit more unclear; the systematic decisions published there are also not cited in the scientific literature at all. I would therefore also argue to exclude them, as systematic decisions are always highly controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siamosaurus sp. – sp. should not be in italics.
Yeah, realized I was accidentally doing that in multiple articles, looks like I missed one! Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Siamosaurus tooth found nearby indicates the skeleton may belong to this genus, though this could also represent evidence of scavenging. – Here it is crucial to state if this is a tooth crown or a complete tooth with root. If it was a scavenger, I expect a tooth crown (the root got resorbed and the crown fell out when it was replaced by a new tooth), but if it was from a skeleton, I expect a complete tooth (which fell out, complete with root, only after the death of the animal).
That would definitely be helpful! But I checked the sources again and unfortunately it is just stated that it was a tooth and not really clarified beyond that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as a skull or body fossil – body fossil has its own meaning (the opposite of a trace fossil), and the skull is a body fossil.
Reworded to "such as a skull or postcranial skeleton", is that better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viewed distally (from away from the centre of attachment) – this is misleading. Distal view means the view towards the centre of attachment, as you are looking at the distal end. Just as "anterior view" means "front view".
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • since ceratosaur teeth differ in cross section – can this be more specific? E.g. "are more narrow"?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spinosaurus aegyptiacus from Egypt, whose fragmentary fossils had been destroyed during World War II. Like Siamosaurus, this African genus – This refers to S. aegyptiacus, which is a species not a genus.
Changed to "taxon". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • that since crocodilian teeth are usually more strongly recurved than spinosaur teeth, they cannot represent the same taxon – I can't follow, which taxon?
Changed to "they can be distinguished from each other". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • may have spread from west to eastern Laurasia—the northernmost supercontinent – "western"? Furthermore, I would use "northern" instead of "northernmost", since it is the only northern supercontinent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I'm adding this to the urgents list for a third comprehensive review and also to the source reviews list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: how is the source review looking? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN35 appears to be a children's book - is there no better source supporting this claim? Ditto FN36
Given how obscure this dinosaur is, published size estimates are few in number so these are the best and only good sources I could find. Their authors include dinosaur expert Don Lessem and palaeoartist Jan Sovak (who has illustrated works by scientists such as Phil Currie); and palaeontologists such as Darren Naish and David Martill, so they should be sound in terms of reliability. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason why size estimates would be published uniquely in children's books? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, size estimates can be found both in popular books by palaeontologists (like those by Gregory S. Paul[2] and Thomas Holtz[3]) and journal articles[4][5], so usually it just depends on what might be available for that particular animal. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes theropoddatabase.com a high-quality reliable source?
The author, Mickey Mortimer, has co-authored published, peer reviewed-papers. However I've just removed the second instance where this is cited, since systematic decisions on the assignment of fossil material should probably be reserved for better sources. So this ref is now only citing uncontroversial information that I haven't found anywhere else (the note about the paratypes). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • News sources that have a full publication date, should include that date in their citations
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet Archive, if credited, should be credited using |via= not |others=
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If publication locations are to be included, they should be in the |location= parameter, but this should be consistent
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN13: if no other source has reported on this, don't think it warrants inclusion. However if the citation is kept it needs reformatting
Citation kept as it goes into a bit more detail on Phu Wiang Museum. Reformatting done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that warrant inclusion? (Now 11 and 13 are the same) Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to clarify! FN11 notes that Siamosaurus fossils are housed in Phu Wiang Museum; FN12 mentions fossils are also housed in Sirindhorn museum, as well as the sculpture outside the building; and FN13 mentions the Siamosaurus model inside Phu Wiang museum. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn12: don't duplicate information between publisher and author parameters
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: don't duplicate work title in article title
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN14: can you verify the publication title?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN17: who hosts this conference?
Added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent in how you format conference proceedings
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed. For example FN16 include publisher and location while FN28 includes neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the location name, but the publisher (SVPCA) would have to be a duplicate of the journal title, which is a required field, so let me know what I should do in this case or if I should use another template. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've added SVPCA, which is fine, but I'm still seeing inconsistencies - for example in FN17 you've shoehorned a bunch of content into the publisher parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've entered the correct publisher and moved that content to a work= parameter. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes ResearchSEA a high-quality reliable source?
Reliable news platform sharing scientific research, turns up numerous hits on Google Scholar[6][7]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those hits do you believe demonstrate its reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Among others, these papers[8][9][10], which cite articles published on ResearchSEA. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes PalArch's a high-quality reliable source?
Reputable Dutch science journal, also heavily cited on Google Scholar[11]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those hits do you believe demonstrate its reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above[12], and it's also been cited in multiple recent featured dinosaur articles with no doubts about its reliability, including Gallimimus, Dilophosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Segnosaurus, and Irritator. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNS 31 through 33 should use more specific titles and |publisher=Sirindhorn Museum instead of |website=
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - "instead of", not both. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit stumped on what to do here, could you please clarify? I see only templates for websites, journals, books, news and just the simple basic form, But nothing for 'publisher'? My brain kinda melts when it comes to citation templates so sorry if it's a dumb question. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a separate template, it's a matter of which parameters are being used - each of those templates includes a separate parameter for a publisher versus a work title (website, journal title, etc). Right now both are included in these citations, and what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it, thanks. Removed the 'name of website' parameter. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that theses can be used as long as they have undergone sufficient academic rigour, in this case the dissertation was supervised by professors Dr. Thomas Martin and Martin Sander, two respected German palaeontologists. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about FN61? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Advised by palaeontologist Gilles Cuny[13][14], professor of palaeontology at the University of Lyon; and Prof. Kumthorn Thirakhupt[15][16][17] at the biology department of Chulalongkorn University. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN37 is missing author forenames and language
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping here and oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered all comments Nikkimaria, feel free to give the article a look over if needed to check if any of these were missed. Some were done by Jonesey95 so I've crossed off all the ones they fixed as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to further comments Nikkimaria, with two template-related questions above. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36 is missing language
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include accessdate
May I ask which other sources need that parameter? Is it only used for sources that might not be permanently available? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's only required for web sources that do not include a publication date. You can choose to include it in other circumstances, but you'd need to be consistent. For example, if you chose to include it for newspaper refs such as FN7, it would need to be included for all newspaper refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, removed access dates where not necessary then. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn52: what kind of source is this? Citation does not seem complete. Ditto FN67, FN68, FN69, check for others
Removed unecessary parameters, added missing ones, and changed templates in these citations. Let me know if I missed anything. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are FNs 67 and 69 meant to be the same source? They are quite differently formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like they're the same source though? 67 is "Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Continental Ecosystems in SE Asia" and 69 "The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda)". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at "The biogeographical significance of the Mesozoic vertebrates from Thailand". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, removed duplicate. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN50 seems to have an incorrect title
Are you sure? Seems to match (I'm assuming it's "Integrating palaeoecology and morphology in theropod diversity estimation: A case from the Aptian-Albian of Tunisia" that you're talking about). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Programs and Abstracts that's the issue - the source link does not have this as a publication title. (Also this ref is missing pages). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed with a better formatted version of the source from Ichthyovenator. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn60 is missing pages
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page range is too large to be useful. Possibly the two instances of this ref should be split? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look through the source again and managed to find a lower range of pages containing the cited information (140 to 160); hopefully that's better. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN71: that "Special Publications" source has been referenced elsewhere but formatted differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked for other instances of "An early 'ostrich dinosaur' (Theropoda: Ornithomimosauria) from the Early Cretaceous Sao Khua Formation of NE Thailand" but I can't seem to find any duplicates. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Special Publications". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found four "Special Publications" references on the article with ctrl + F and they're all separate sources from what I can see. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but from the same publication - why is the publication formatted differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it! Fixed and added series= parameter. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered further comments, Nikkimaria, with some questions. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • The fourth paragraph of history lacks a citation at the end
Looks like I'd accidentally removed it at some point. Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth paragraph of classification seems to be written backwards, with specification of the SMK as the first definitive asian taxon coming after the discussion of Ichthyovenator
I've moved Ichthyovenator's discovery to the end of the paragraph. Hopefully that works better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per above, the subject of discussion beginning with "Milner and colleagues" is never specified so without checking the source I assumes it was all saying that Ichthyovenator was the first definitive asian spinosaurid.
Good catch. Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to hold this against the writers, but I feel as if this entire article is likely to implode if a definitive review of the material is ever published. Either Allain ea in future will support this taxon and its various assignments, or the article will need to be completely recomposed. I won't oppose because of this but I am skeptical of the longevity of this article, which seems to be a composite of all southeast asian spinosaurs under the guise of Siamosaurus. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If, say, the skeletal elements are moved to a new genus, I guess the only consequence for this article would be that it would get shorter? At currently 84,244 bytes, if it only focused on the teeth, it would still be a sizeable article... FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would just mean a serious revision, but unless an Amphicoelias happens it should be updated to the same quality. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about this, especially since Buffetaut is yet to publish his reassessment of the genus. The whole situation is very similar to Richardoestesia and, even if the genus is valid, it's probably doubtful that all of the teeth referred to it belong to the same taxon. Either way, I'm certainly up for restructuring this article when/if the time comes. If it takes a particularly heavy hit, at least much of this information (such as the history of research & palaeobiogeography/ecology of Asian spinosaurids) can still be used in articles such as Spinosauridae. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough to satisfy me, having read the article through now I think it is very comprehensive and I'll give it my support. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Siamosaurus/archive1&oldid=973913746"