Tatenectes has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 1, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance Tatenectes is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tatenectes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ok, since I and others already performed an extensive palaeo peer review here[1], and since Jens Lallensack asked about whether it would be appropriate for us to then conduct the GA review and got a positive answer[2], I guess it is in order that I do so, as the GAN backlog is also very huge now and needs all the pruning it can get. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I don't have much to add since the peer review was already done with GA in mind, but I see at least the captions could need more links to taxon names and other unlinked terms. I'll have a look later to see if there are other issues I can find.

I've added a few more links, thoughts? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good, how about cryptoclidid, belemnite, and Sundance Formation, and gastralium? FunkMonk (talk)

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Are there any additional papers that may be relevant which you have been unable to find?

Not that I can think of. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Being a bit crammed now, have you considered where the new life restoration should be placed? Perhaps the size comparison could be left aligned, then the restoration could be on the right over the second paragraph under description.

I was thinking that it could go opposite to the cladogram. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess it could be tried out now? There doesn't seem to have been issues raised at the paleoart review. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice, I think it would maybe be best to put it before the skeleton? Now it is a bit confusing that it is so far removed form the description section, coming after a photo of a different taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I see a couple of duplinks in close proximity, you can highlight the with this script:[3]

I'll look into this in a moment. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I believe that they've been dealt with. That's a handy tool, by the way! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not much more to say here, looks good, but if we want to be really nitpicky, you could be more consistent in how you list citation authors. You now do it three different ways; last name first with only initials for first names, full names with last names first, and then full names with first names first. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally I just go with however the names are written in the publication of abbreviation for abbreviation. I'm not really sure how much consistency of abbreviation in citations matters, such variation is present in Puertasaurus, for example. I can change it if it's a problem, though. I did reformat the first name first reference, that citation template used the old "authors" parameter instead of "firstX" and "lastX", not to mention that "the" in the title was capitalized twice (this reference was present in the article before I started expanding it, which is why there was a difference in style). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, for GAN it isn't really important, but it is if you wish to take it to FAC at some point. But as far as I'm concerned, this can be promoted now. Next issue is where we put the peer review now that it's done... FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oh, seems the synonyms weren't redirects, I just created them, so all should be fine, promoted! FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]