Talk:Arambourgiania

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:Arambourgiania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 19:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• link genus, species

• After examination of the specimen by paleontologist Camille Arambourg, a new genus and species was named in 1959, Titanopteryx philadelphiae – You do not explicitly say who named it. Better reformulate "Aeambourg named …"

• The genus "Titanopteryx" would later be problematic, as it had already been taken by a fly. Because of this, paleontologist Lev Nessov in 1989 named a new genus, Arambourgiania – Not the genus became problematic but the name, right? And isn't it better to write "renamed the genus" instead of "named a new genus"?

• Include a link to Philadelphia (Amman)

• Arambourgiania has a total neck length of 3 m – "had", right?

• more soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  implemented! AFH (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• with -iania being a suffix indicating possession – not mentioned in body. Better move to body to keep the first lead sentence precise?

• longer than that of the contemporary giraffe – what giraffe lived at the same time as this pterosaur??

• Arambourgiania has often been compared to other gigantic pterosaurs such as Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx in terms of size. – I am struggling to see what the information here is; what is the point?

• One of the closest relatives of Arambourgiania is Quetzalcoatlus, as multiple studies have found both pterosaurs to be grouped together within Azhdarchidae. – There are many azhdarchids; just because both are in Azhdarchidae doesn't mean they are particularly close. Do you ment to say they are sister taxa?

• In Jordan, Arambourgiania lived in the Ruseifa Formation – I don't think you can say that; it did not "live" in a unit of rocks!

• which was a deep marine deposit during the Maastrichtian – no, it is still a deposit today, but it was deposited during the Maastrichtian. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• British archaeologist Fielding – Do we know his full name?

• brought the fossil to the attention of British archaeologist Fielding. This generated some publicity – suboptimal wording; you are saying that the act of showing the fossil to Fielding generated publicity, but the publicity was certainly due to press releases or similar that Fielding issued after learning about the find.

• Arambourg had a plaster cast made and then sent the fossil back to the phosphate mine; this last aspect was later forgotten, and the bone was assumed lost. – I have two issues here: "Send to the phosphate mine" makes little sense to me; certainly it was not sent into the mine? "Send to the owners of the mine" would make more sense. What do the sources say? Second, "this last aspect" refers to the sending to the phosphate mine, so the specimen was thought lost because nobody knew it was "in" in the phosphate mine? Please clarify the sentence here.

• This fossil indicated the largest pterosaur known to science, but remained largely ignored, with the pteranodontid Pteranodon still being recognized as the largest pterosaur known to science, until the description of Quetzalcoatlus. – This sentence is quite swampy and imprecise and doesn't really help much. Who thought it was the largest pterosaur known to science, and when?

• However, the name "Titanopteryx" was informally kept in use in the West, partially because the new name Arambourgiania was assumed by many to be a nomen dubium (dubious name). – Does not make sense to me; why should Arambourgiania be a nomen dubium but not Titanopteryx?

• In early 1995, paleontologists David Martill and Eberhard Frey traveled to Jordan in an attempt to clarify matters. – What did they want to clarify? You didn't mention any issue.

• Later, Frey and Martill rejected the suggestion that Arambourgiania was a nomen dubium or a synonym of Quetzalcoatlus, affirming its validity to replace the preoccupied name "Titanopteryx". – You didn't mention that anyone suggested it was Quetzalcoatlus.

• affirming its validity to replace the preoccupied name "Titanopteryx" – why does it have to be valid in order to replace a preoccupied name? The one thing does not have anything to do with the other, no?

Note: The article is comprehensive, the structure and flow of information is good, and it has the right amount of detail. But the issue is prose and clarity; it currently fails GA1 "well written". I am doing copy edits to improve on this point, but that will be slow and take time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

all points implemented and I have begun copy editing myself AFH (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a bit slow on this, my apologies. Will get this going now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• In 2018, a set of topotype specimens from Arambourgiania – Very confusing, can you re-write this section? Better avoid "topotype" and substitute with an explanation instead. Furthermore, you never say who, when, and why this material was assigned to Arambourgiania. It sounds as if these always were assigned to that genus. How do we know they are from the same locality?

• Is Otto Haas relevant enough for a Wikipedia article? If not sure, consider removing the redlink. Same with those redlinked paleontologists.

• Upper Campanian or Early Maastrichtian-aged – substrages in lower case ("upper Campanian"). Also, if you say "aged", you are referring to the chronostratigraphic units, so it should be "late Campanian or early Maastrichtian"

• pneumaticity – should be explained.

• link Memphis

• cf. Arambourgiania, indicating a species of uncertain affinities – no, cf. means "compare with", so it is a specimen similar to Arambourgiania but not necessarily assignable to that genus.

• considered this specimen as Arambourgiania sp. due to the morphological differences and temporal separation from the holotype – Makes no sense to me: They assign it to Arambourgiania because it differs in morphology and comes from a different age? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• In 2024, the describers of the genus Inabtanin discovered a partial right humerus – I don't actually believe that they discovered the bone in 2024 when the JVP paper where it is described was published the same year (this journal is very slow). Please check. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  all suggestions implemented, thank you! AFH (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• aff. Arambourgiania sp. – also other instances with .sp, .cf, and similar abbreviations: This might be very hard to understand for a casual reader. This might be a place where simplification is warranted; simply explain in words how the specimen was classified.

• The assignment of this specimen came into question in the 2025 description of Infernodrakon, where the authors considered the specimen as aff. Arambourgiania sp. due to its cross section and the lack of further study of the fossil. – You should clarify if the cross section is a similarity or a difference to Arambourgiania.

• two American fossil collectors collected – not satisfactory; two times collected; are they private collectors? Paleontologists? This is a bit unspecific.

• a paired femur and tibia – do you mean "the left and right femora and tibiae"?

• Initially described as indeterminate pterosaur or later Pteranodon, – don't know what that means. "later" = geologically younger?

• attributed to as cf. ?"Titanopteryx" – The cf. ? does not even make sense to me; cf. means "compare with", so why the question mark? Anyways, I am also not sure if we should say "attributed to" when using cf., since this is comparison, not a taxon something can be attributed to.

• In 2014, these specimens were labeled as Azhdarchidae indet., – use "indeterminate" and link to nomen dubium

• The cervical vertebra had been taken from strata – why do we need another (unlinked) technical term here ("strata") when you previously just said "rocks"?

• Late Campanian – substages always lower case

• Arambourgiania is known from fragmentary remains, with no confirmed associated specimens known. – Needs clarification; "associated specimen" would be other specimens associated with an Arambourgiania specimen but I don't think this is what you mean.

• dorsal (back) vertebra – don't link to "thoracic vertebra" since that's not the same.

• In the anatomy section you gloss terms, e.g., cervical (neck), femur (thigh bone), though these terms are used earlier already.

• However, later, more accurate estimates – more accurate than what? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure if I'm qualified to comment here, but the reason why it is noted as cf. ?Titanopteryx (which was originally included by me) is because that is exactly how Gallagher (1993) identified it as: refer Page 105 Junsik1223 (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  implemented all suggestions AFH (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• The holotype does not present a complete vertebra, and a piece is absent from its posterior end as well. – You already mentioned that it is fragmentary two times in that paragraph.

• A fragment of a neural arch from either an anterior dorsal (back) vertebra or a cervical 7, but it is too incomplete and worn to surmise much information. – I don't understand anything here. What fragment is this talking about, from where? "cervical 7" means seventh cervical?

• topotype – you sould explain this term, or avoid it.

• Its shaft has an ovular to compressed ovular cross section from shaft to distal end – The shaft is ovular from the shaft?

• Its posterior end is more expanded at its proximal end than the anterior end – Do you mean "posterior side" here, or what "end" is meant?

• Frey and Martill estimated the total length of the holotype to have been 77–78 cm (2 ft 6.31 in – 2 ft 6.71 in) – again, already mentioned. The text is quite repetitive.

• From the relatively slender vertebra, the length dimension was then selected to be compared to that of Quetzalcoatlus as well, estimated at 66 cm (2 ft 2 in) long, which results in a ratio of 1.18. – I have trouble following here. I don't know what this is trying to say.

• This was due to the remains being too fragmentary to estimate a gigantic size. – Does not make sense to me; we cannot estimate gigantic sizes when fossils are incomplete, but we can estimate normal and small sizes? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  implemented AFH (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• which also received a definition by Padian the same year. – Since you do not give any taxonomic definition (node-based taxon? stem-based taxon?), I suggest to remove this.

• • implemented

• In the "Paleobiology" section, please check for runaway sentences and split them up.
• have historically been considered to have been scavengers – I don't think you need the "to have been"; also check other sentences with similar issues.
• most researchers until that point – Until what point? You were talking about historical interpretations without determining a particular point in time.
• The prevalence of Arambourgiania fossils in oceanic deposits suggests that it died at sea or was washed out. – "It" died at sea? Are you referring to a particular individual/specimen here?
• The first two paragraphs in "Paleobiology" are about azhdarchids in general, not about this genus in particular. They are a bit wordy and could benefit from applying WP:Summary style (shortening; making more simple points in shorter sentences).
• Terrestrial locomotion in azhdarchids like Quetzalcoatlus likely involved a pacing gait, wherein the limbs on one side of the body would move at roughly the same time, followed by those of the opposite side. For example, the forelimb on one side of the body would lift off the ground and move forward first, to avoid colliding with the hind foot, and the hind limb would follow suit. The forefoot would be planted in the ground just before the hind foot. Once the stride completed, the same process would repeat on the opposite side of the body – This description is contradictory. First, you state that the fore- and hind limb on one side of the body move at the same time. This is indeed what "pace gait" means. But then, you say that one forelimb lift off first (so not at the same time).
• Note that "stride" can also refer to a complete step cycle (including left and right limbs). You should avoid that term or explain it.
• The gait interpretation also needs author attribution.
• with Arambourgiania living in a marine environment suggesting that it and other giant azhdarchids were volant and could implement thermal soaring in their flight. – doesn't make any sense to me.
• However, the Ruseifa Formation is the most recently adopted and commonly used title. – This is based on a paper from 1996? Can we speak of "recent" here?

I finished my copy edits now, and the review should be complete. You tend to write a lot while saying little. Often, you include repetitions and redundancies. Other times, you include detail that is just unnecessary, instead of focusing on the key point. In addition, I suggest to have a look at Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment, as this was a common issue in your article. For example, consider your sentence Fossils here are preserved through the infilling of bone by limestone matrix, resulting in well preserved, 3D fossils being available for study. Do you really need to tell the reader that these fossils are available for study? Are you afraid that they would somehow assume they are not available for study? I think you could improve your writing substantially by keeping these things in mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the suggestions. I will edit the paleobiology section and I think that will be all. Thank you so much. AFH (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Is the review ready to pass? AFH (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Have the last comments above been addressed? For example, the runaway sentences I pointed out are still there; for example In 2008, Mark Witton and Darren Naish pointed out that although azhdarchids have historically been considered to have been scavengers, probers of sediment, swimmers, waders, aerial predators, or stork-like generalists, most researchers until that point had considered them to have been skim-feeders living in coastal settings, which fed by trawling their lower jaws through water while flying and catching prey from the surface (like skimmers and some terns). – That is way too long for a single sentence, and very difficult to read. Please check for other long sentences, and check if all other comments have been addressed. After that, the article should be fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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.