Talk:Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060

Expansion

I think that this could be a much more interesting article if it were on dinosaur "mummies" in general, and their preservation, including the other "Sternberg mummy", the hadrosaur lost at sea in WWI, and Leonardo the Brachylophosaurus. J. Spencer 05:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more - I had no idea such things existed until I read this DYK! 86.133.246.224 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here [1] is another one. --80.134.202.54 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Any news on a merged "dinosaur mummy" article? Would be very interesting.

PD images

It seems that these image by Osborn from 1912 are public domain.[2] [3] [4] They should be included in the article. -- Petri Krohn 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur mummy

"Dinosaur mummy" directs here. There are multiple fossils that have been referred to as dinosaur or fossil "mummies" due to the fact that preservation extends far beyond mere bone, sometimes even including skin and scales. Is there no article for this sort of extreme fossilization?73.32.145.62 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to make it... See section above. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 19:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Some copy editing done. Please revert or query anything you are not happy about.

• Images need alt text.

• added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Several duplicate links need removing.

• done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Twards the end of the "Hand" section, there is a long paragraph ending in a quote, the last part of which appears to be unreferenced. I suspect that it is based on Bakker's excellent book, in which case could you repeat the cite immediately after "the long, spread toes of today's paddling animals such as ducks."

• yes, added citation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Since 1942, the mummy was referred to the new species Anatosaurus copei" Should that be 'referred to as the new species ...'?

• not really, it is not the holotype, just a referred specimen. I simply removed the "new". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• "which in 1990 was externalized in its own genus". "externalised" seems very odd. Is it a technical paleontology word? If not it needs changing.

• changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• "in a 1942 monography" Should that be 'monograph'?

• changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• "extended up to five centimeters beyond the fingertips" Convert?

• changed, and adjusted/completed all other conversion templates. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• The titles of most sources are not in title case. They should be.

• Hm, to my knowledge, this only applies to book titles, not journal titles? See examples in Template:Cite journal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. But Grave secrets of dinosaurs: soft tissues and hard science, The dinosaur heresies and Hunting dinosaurs in the bad lands of the Red Deer River, Alberta, Canada: a sequel to The life of a fossil hunter are books I think.

Sure, changed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• When giving page ranges, could you preface them with 'pp.'?

• As above, I always thought that this is undesired for journal cites in WP (and in academia), see examples in Template:Cite journal? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not what I was taught, but you can evidence your approach, so fine.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the copy edit and the comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Bar the book titles I reckon that it meets the standards. It looks more or less FAC ready to me. Give me a ping when you nominate it and I'll comment.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Good to hear that, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Great work!

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Dating

Yet another suggestion: although one could probably assume 69-68 Ma for this species, unless I missed it, I could not find any coverage of dating/age in this article yet. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Size

There does not seem to be any mention of the overall dimensions or mass of the mummy in the article, just the size of the dig. Is this data available? Also, are there estimates of the dimensions and mass of this dinosaur when it was alive? -- Harris7 (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This was also asked about during the FAC, and such measurements don't seem to be given in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case the article should say that the size of this prehistoric monster is unknown and could easily range from the size of a mouse to that of a house. GMRE (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the size the species in general could reach could be mentioned. Or maybe that could be misleading, what does Jens Lallensack think? FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Season

When is "early spring"? Isn't the actual date known? --The Huhsz (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That probably is unknown. I'm assuming the guys must have been digging around for a whole summer there, before recollecting that they found that one some time in "early spring". GMRE (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the significance of the A and B?

One of the pictures has highlighted zones, marked as "A" and "B", but there does not appear to be any explanation. If anyone knows what those are meant to mean, can they add them into the picture caption? GMRE (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean this one?[5] They show where some of the other close-up images are located on the animal, namely these:[6][7] Not sure how or if this should be added to the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)