I provided a rating of two stars for insight--the article is a modest advance (but not a completely novel one--other studies, for instance, reference 45, have used similar methods). The provision of new mass estimates for some taxa largely ignored in the previous literature is a good thing, though. I have given three stars for reliability, in that I think that the method is relatively preliminary and could use more testing, particularly with extant animals and alternative postures for the skeletons. However, the sensitivity analyses are a good step in the right direction. I have rated the study with four stars for style, for the relatively novel technical nature of the analysis.
