Template talk:Did you know/Theropod paleopathology

Theropod paleopathology

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk)

• ... that the low numbers of injuries in carnivorous dinosaurs indicate they may have been less aggressive with individuals of their same species than modern crocodilians?

Created by Abyssal (talk). Self nom at 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are some serious issues with this nomination:

1) The text is technically all from one source, a book called Mesozoic Vertebrate Life (albeit from two chapters in the book), with heavy weight placed on Molnar.

2) The flow of the article including heading and specimen description is identical to the organization in the book. The text is not a direct copy, but I could predict which dinosaur the source would mention next based on the wiki article (this is plagiarism even if text is not copied directly, organization is a component).

3) There are other view-points out there such as [1] and the other papers Molnar cites.

4) There is an inordinate amount of detail (basically a detailed summary of the entire Molnar chapter) which could be summed up as "fractures were found in multiple specimens across many species." I see no reason to catalog every fracture.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say no on this one. The article is so massive and elements are so close to the source, I don't think this can be fixed without a lot of editing or a total rewrite. Any other editors want to weigh-in? Froggerlaura (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first objection is unfair, the two papers were written by different people for different purposes. They were both published in Mesozoic Vertebrate Life, but MVL is an anthology of unrelated research whose connections are only thematic. To say the article is "technically all from one source" when I consult an anthology like MVL is like criticizing me for using two different books checked out from the same library.

The second objection isn't entirely correct, or fair. For one thing the organization isn't the same as Molnar's review, who breaks the body pathologies into two sections, one for body fractures and one for dental. Within each of those sections the organization is the same, but I object to the plagiarism accusation on the grounds that there are very few logical ways of organizing the topic. Of all the paleopathology works I've read they've only been organized in one of three ways; by the different conditions, by the different dinosaur groups, and by affected body parts. I couldn't sort the article by the pathologies because there were so many it would have produced a large number of excessively short sections and a huge table of contents. Sorting by affected body part would have scattered the different pathologies affecting each kind of dinosaur from eachother. I also think that most readers of this kind of article would be more familiar with the different dinosaur groups than with anatomical terms like individual skull bones.

Your third objection also seems unfair. There is no DYK criterion that says a nominated article has to consult every source available on its subject. And besides, if I had consulted all of Molnar's sources I'd be over relying on WP:Primary sources. It feels like a catch-22. If I use a review I'm not using enough sources, if I use the sources it's a WP:Primary violation.

This last objection sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. If you're not interested in a detailed review of the different pathologies affecting different theropods, I understand, but plenty of people are and God knows it's attracted plenty of research attention, even if Ithe article doesn't cite every single bit of it, as you noted above. Abyssal (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I did not mean to offend, but I flagged the nomination because the sentence organization is the same as the Molnar chapter with a few words swapped around (this is close paraphrasing).

• Example from Wiki article (Allosauroids section): An apparent subadult male Allosaurus fragilis was reported by Laws to have extensive pathologies.[11] The specimen, MOR 693, had pathologies on five ribs, the sixth neck vertebra the third eighth and thirteenth back vertebrae, the second tail vertebra and its chevron, the gastralia right scapula, the first phalanx of the first finger, its left ilium, third and fifth metatarsals, the first phalanx of the third toe, and the third phalanx of the second toe.[11] The ilium had "a large hole... caused by a blow from above".[11] The near side of the first phalanx of the third toe was afflicted by an involucrum.[11] This individual had a total of 14 pathologies.[11]
• From source:“Laws (1995, 1997) reported extensive paleopathologies of an apparently subadult male, MOR 693. These pathologies affected five dorsal ribs, cervical 6, dorsals 3, 8, and 13, caudal 2 and its chevron, the gastralia, right scapula, manual phalanx I-1, left ilium, metatarsal’s III and V, and pedal phalanges III-1 and II-3 (ungula; a second ungula was mentioned in 1995)…The injured ilium had sustained “a large hole…caused by a blow from above” (Tanke and Rothschild 199, 106). A “prominent collar-like exostosis” (or involucrum) affected the proximal end of pedal phalanx III-1. A total of 14 injuries were recorded. [R. E. Molnar, “Paleopathology: A literature survey.” In Mesozoic Vertebrate Life. page 341]

The format is way too close to the source material. My last comment was an effort to advocate summary (not detailed descriptions) of some of the fractures to avoid the close paraphrasing. I'm actually very interested in this subject as I do a version of this in RL, but given some of the discussion on DYK recently [2] (some of which I think is nit-picky), I think that this would be brought up if it hit the main page. If the passages can be rearranged or amended to avoid close paraphrasing (even citing the bones in a different order) I will reconsider. Right now many paragraphs have identical sentence organization to the book. Froggerlaura (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you, say, copy that Allosaurus paragraph from the article that's listed above and tweak it to a degree that would satisfy you? I agree it ain't perfect and might be a borderline case, but it seems at least close to dodging WP:CLOSE to me. I'm willing to rewrite whatever it takes to make this legit, but I want to preserve as much of the detailed facts as possible. Abyssal (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I played around with the passage:

A juvenile male Allosauris fragilis (MOR 693) was reported to have 14 separate bone fractures (pathologies, assumed fractures). The animal had multiple broken bones in its hands and feet, including fractures in the proximal segment of the first finger, proximal and distal segments of the first and third toes and the third and fifth metatarsals. The head of the proximal phalanx of the third toe also contained a piece of necrotic bone (a sequestrum or involucrum-mean same thing). Multiple pathologies were also observed in five ribs and the cervical (6), thoracic (3, 8, 13) and chevron of the second caudal (tail) vertebrae. The right scapula, gastralia and ilium were also affected, with the ilial fracture suggesting overhead blunt-force trauma.

• The idea can be the same, but the sentences have to be arranged differently. Try to go back through the paragraphs and rearrange (some are indeed borderline and are OK) those that follow the original source too closely. Also any "quotes" that Molnar gives might be better to cite to original source or might be better to just avoid. Froggerlaura (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your background in pathology shines through in that passage. :P I'm reworking the page a bit. Abyssal (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've completed a preliminary polishing. Abyssal (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• The hook is cited and is supported by the source. The sources are valid and reputable (limited available sources in field- reason for reliance on two authors). There are no instances of copyvio in submission. Nominator has responded to and changed instances of close paraphrasing throughout the article. There are no longer any instances of close or questionable paraphrasing that I can find. Date and length are acceptable, hook is interesting. I accept sources on non-linked pages in GF. Good to go:) Froggerlaura (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)