Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Paranthodon
WikiJournal of Science
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
This article has been through public peer review.
It was adapted from the Wikipedia page Paranthodon and contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a CC BY-SA license. Post-publication review comments or direct edits can be left at the version as it appears on Wikipedia.
First submitted:
Accepted:
Article text
PDF: Download
DOI: 10.15347/wjs/2020.001
QID: Q83852037
XML: Download
Share article
Email
| 
Facebook
| 
Twitter
| 
LinkedIn
| 
Mendeley
| 
ResearchGate
Suggested citation format:
Iain Reid (2020). "Paranthodon". WikiJournal of Science 3 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/WJS/2020.001. Wikidata Q83852037. ISSN 2470-6345. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/6/6b/Paranthodon.pdf.
Citation metrics
AltMetrics
Page views on Wikipedia
Wikipedia: This work is adapted from the Wikipedia article Paranthodon (CC BY-SA). Content has also subsequently been used to update that same Wikipedia article Paranthodon.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Thijs van Vlijmen 
(handling editor) contact
Jack Nunn (handling editor) contact
David J Button
Niclas Borinder
Article information
Submitting author: Iain Reid[i]
Additional contributors: Wikipedia community
- ↑ iainstein27@gmail.com
Plagiarism check
Pass. WMF copyvio tool using TurnItIn.
The phrase "the largest and most complete record of dinosaur fossils from a Late Jurassic African locality outside of Tendaguru" was similarly used in external pages, but it is an attributed quote in the article and so not regarded as plagiarism. Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
First peer reviewer
Review by David Button , Natural History Museum, London
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
I am pleased to say that the article by Reid et al. is overall good - it comprehensively covers the complicated taxonomic history of what has been a somewhat controversial animal; the figures are good and appropriately cited; and the palaeobiological information is sound. Consequently, I have only very minor comments.
- Content
The content is comprehensive, covering relevant research on the animal. However, I think it would be useful to note in the Classification section that relationships between many thyreophoran taxa are still uncertain, being vulnerable to which taxa are sampled (Raven & Maidment, 2018). Similarly, you should cite this paper at the end of the Classification sectionm after "and phylogenies of many authors have found it to be in the group", as it demonstrates retrieval of it as a stegosaur from a range of matrices.
Completed.
Otherwise, it may also be useful to include a basic statement regarding its lifestyle in the Paleoecology section - e.g. "as a stegosaurian, Paranthodon would have been a slow-moving, quadrupedal herbivore" or similar, just to help set the scene.
Statement added and referenced.
- Referencing
The statement "The locality has been described as 'the largest and most complete record of dinosaur fossils from a Late Jurassic African locality outside of Tendaguru'" requires a citation or attribution.
Authorship of quotation and reference have been supplied
Otherwise, all relevant citations are covered. However, given that mot of the observations in the first paragraph under "Description" are from Raven & Maidment (2018) [current citation number 10] it should probably be referenced in that paragraph also.
Added.
- Style
I have detected a few typos/grammatical errors. The first is under the Description section, which reads: "which is seen in all other stegosaurs teeth are known from except Huayangosaurus.[10]". Some words are missing here, it should instead read, e.g. "which is seen in all other stegosaurs from which teeth are known, except for Huayangosaurus." (added words in bold
Added.
The last sentence of the Classification section is similar confusing due to missing words. It currently reads "An elaboration upon this analysis was published in 2017 by Susannah Maidment and Thomas Raven, and it resolved relationships within Stegosauria much more. All taxa were remained included, and Paranthodon grouped with Tuojiangosaurus, Huayangosaurus and Chunkingosaurus as the most basal true stegosaurians. However, the position of Alcovasaurus was uncertain, and further work could change the result. Below is the analysis.[19]".
Completely restructured sentences.
To make sense, the first part of this sentence ought to be changed to "An elaboration upon this analysis was published in 2017 by Susannah Maidment and Thomas Raven, which achieved greater resolution of relationships within Stegosauria."
Added rewording.
I then don't really understand what "all taxa remained included" means - is it just that all the taxa present in the previous analysis were again included? As these were not all defined, it would make more sense to say something like "Nearly all stegosaurians were included, and Paranthodon grouped..."
Suggestion included.
Also, in introducing the phylogeny figure: what you show beneath is not "the analysis", but the results of their analysis. It should instead be introduced as "Below is the single most parsmonious tree recovered from analysis of a combined dataset of discrete and continuous characters in that study" or similar. That also specifies which of the results from their paper you are presenting (the strict consensus of the discrete-only dataset is more poorly resolved).
Suggestion has been implemented. Language may be dumbed-down if it is brought up that "discrete" and "continuous" require defining, otherwise used.
Finally, "and phylogenies by many authors have found it to be within the group" ought to be clarified further, along the lines of "and multiple phylogenetic studies, performed by multiple authors, have resolved it within the clade/as a stegosaurian".
Rectified with rewording and restating of the sentence.
- Ethical standards
Everything fine here.
Second peer reviewer
Review by Niclas Borinder , Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Sweden
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
All in all a very good review of Paranthodon. I cannot find anything really to complain about, with one exception; a study which is not cited in the section "History of discovery" but deserves to be so is the following one: de Clerk, W. J. 2000. South Africa’s first dinosaur revisited – History of the discovery of the stegosaur Paranthodon africanus (Broom). Annals of the Eastern Cape Museums 1:54-60. The pdf of the study is available at the following link: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/51874772#page/56/mode/1up
The reference has been added along with all relevant content within it that was not already included.
Editor's note
Comments by Florian Weller ,
These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Processing of this article was delayed after the receipt of the two present reviews because the editors solicited a third review, which the third reviewer unfortunately failed to submit. The editors decided to finalize assessment of the article on the strength of the two reviews already received. We apologize for the additional loss of time until publication. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 00:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)