Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Baryonyx

Plagiarism check
✅ WMF copyvio tool using TurnItIn. Some uncontroversial instances of standard phrasing as expected for the subject matter ("the opening of the Tethys", "teeth in the lower jaw"), otherwise unique content. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 14:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Second peer review
{{review |reviewer = Andrew Cuff |credentials = Royal Veterinary College |version = https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=WikiJournal_Preprints/Baryonyx&oldid=1858961 |date    = 13 May 2018 |

Overall
I think most of the writing is decent, and information is there. I would suggest that the authors have a look at making sure all statements are referenced appropriately throughout the manuscript. This would be of particular interest for areas where each sentence has a statement, but the reference doesn’t appear until the end of the paragraph. Can I also suggest there is consistency with regards to referencing authors/studies. Some studies get full author names (e.g. Charig and Milner found) others are just described as “a study found” without any obvious reason as to why.

I would also suggest that there could be a better ordering/rearranging of the manuscript as the description, history and classification sections present information that might belong in the others. In fact, I think the best solution might just be a rearrangement so it is ordered history, description and classification in that order.

Specific comments
I think the opening section should have references throughout which currently is unreferenced.

I would remove conference abstracts as they aren’t fully published data (or you need to add in a lot more abstracts e.g. Fowler D, 2007. Recently rediscovered baryonychine teeth (Dinosauria: Theropoda): new morphologic data, range extension and similarity to ceratosaurs)

Additionally there is a new reference that has appeared during the review period that pertains to aquatic habits of spinosaurs from Aureliano et al., 2018., (Semi-aquatic adaptations in a spinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Brazil. Cretaceous Research. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2018.04.024.) that deserves checking/mentioning.

This text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License. }}
 * Thanks for the reviews so far. It has been a slow start, summer and all, but I am currently implementing these suggestions to the Wikipedia version of the article, and will later transfer them here. FunkMonk (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Author response to reviews

 * Note: summary of all edits since submission here. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Christophe Hendrickx
I'm fully satisfied with what I read and the way the article is now organized. The author did an excellent job and took into account the large majority of my comments and suggestions. I actually agree with him about keeping the specimen number and reference to Gregory Paul. I was indeed incorrect in believing (with some doubt though) that Suchosaurus was the first theropod to be named, it's actually one of the first dinosaurs to be named. In any event, I support the publication of this article and would like to congratulate the main author for his job. This will hopefully invite him to carry on his excellent job for other articles on theropods and dinosaurs. (posted from email communication with permission --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC))