Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dromaeosauroides/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 11:43, 30 November 2013 [1].

Dromaeosauroides

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first, and so far only, named Danish dinosaur. So it kind of has sentimental value to me, as a dinosaur geek from Denmark. I've created all but one of the images in the article, and I consulted the author as well as the finder of the fossil when I drew the restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Always nice to see such a high quality article on an educational and encyclopedic topic. Short n sweet. Covers major aspects with good organizational structure. Meticulous use of sourcing throughout, to WP:RS sources. Also, SCIENCE!!! — Cirt (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I just added the upload date for the image. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Quadell

This is a fascinating article, well-organized, with clear prose. I've listed some issues and suggestions below.

  • Images: I concur with Cirt, that all images are legitimately in the public domain and have all required information present. But I have to double-check: Did you draw/paint File:Dromaeosauroides.jpg yourself? It's quite impressive.
Yeah, thanks, I'm a professional animator in real life, which comes in handy when a restoration is needed here! FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's some amazing work. I'm truly impressed. – Quadell (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: Thank you for providing the photos of the teeth, but I must admit, they are of relatively low quality. Do you live near this display (the Geological Museum in Copenhagen)? Is there any way you could provide clearer photos? This isn't an FA requirement, but I wanted to ask. (In contrast, your Dromaeosaurus skull photo is crystal clear.)
I took both photos with the same camera, the problem is that both are behind glass, but the tooth was much further away, and much smaller, so it didn't turn out so good. But I'll add it if I take a better photo. Same with the other tooth and the track. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've never been to Bornholm, but if I go there, I'll try to get a photo of the actual teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style and Accuracy: The country of Denmark is mentioned three times in the first four sentences of the lead. I don't think all these mentions are appropriate. I especially question whether Dromaeosauroides can accurately be said to be "the first known dinosaur from Denmark" or "from the Early Cretaceous of Denmark". After all, Denmark is a modern country that didn't exist at the time. (Besides, it's unlikely that Dromaeosauroides species only lived within the borders of modern Denmark.) You could say that the genus is from the Scandinavian region, or from the European continent, or that its remains have been found only within modern Denmark. But I don't think the dinosaur was "from Denmark" in any meaningful sense, despite Denmark's justifiable pride in the find.
How about this?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great fix, thanks. – Quadell (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity: I don't know what "self-activating unemployed people" are.
Removed "self-activating", not sure how else to put it, maybe it's a Danish thing. "Activation" for unemployed people basically means they do something whichis not necessarily a real job and get money for it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure we have a word for that. They were paid by the state? They weren't volunteers? – Quadell (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They proposed the project themselves and successfully applied for funding, so I'm not sure that would be called volunteers? Some of the sentence was removed during copyediting, it originally said "In the 1990s, the "Fossil Group/Project" (disbanded in 2005) was formed by a group of self-activating unemployed people, who successfully applied for funds from Denmark and the EEC, to maintain geological locations on Bornholm." FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style: The article has many more parenthesized comments than most FAs, including one instance of a confusing double-parenthesization in the "Description" section. It would look more professional if at least some of these were reworded. Some, like "(perhaps due to dinoflagellate toxins)", would work better simply with a comma separation. As a suggestion, it seems to me that many of the parenthetical asides in the article would work better as footnotes. The clarification "not to be confused with the Robbedale Formation..." stands out as a footnote opportunity, as does the "a Bengal tiger of the same length..." comment. I'm not against parentheses (obviously), but I think their overuse can harm the encyclopedic tone of the article.
I agree, most of this was added by the copyeditor. I'll change it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you have made (so far) definitely improve the professionalism of the prose. I feel like more "de-parenthesization" would be helpful, but I haven't yet decided if it's necessary or not. By the way, I noticed you did not choose to use explanatory footnotes. Is this because you don't think it would be an improvement, or because they are difficult to set up? What I'm asking is, would you want certain statements converted into footnotes if someone else were willing to do it, or would you prefer them to be left as they are? – Quadell (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it's basically because I don't really like footnotes! I myself never read them, and find it annoying when interesting information is not just there in the text, but somewhat hidden. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'll look the article over tomorrow and propose some more specific prose suggestions. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With a fresh look this morning, I now think all necessary prose issues have been resolved. (I may have stylistic differences, but that doesn't mean the article's wordings are incorrect.) – Quadell (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style: This duplicated "which" feels slightly clunky: "which exhibited the fossils which were found"
How about "which exhibited the fossils they discovered"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. – Quadell (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style: When a prepositional phrase starts a sentence to give context for the entire sentence (e.g. "In 2005..."), some writers use a comma and some do not. Either is acceptible, but an article should use a reasonably consistent style. This article uses commas in some cases (like "After this discovery," "In an interview," and "In 2012,") but omits commas in other cases (like "In September 2000", "During the course", and "In a press release").
Added commas. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikicode help requested: When the article has wikicode of "the Greek ''-ides''", my browser (Chrome) does not connect the dash firmly to the ides, so it separates them when at the edge of the screen. That makes the sentence confusing. Is there some html code or wiki code to prevent that from splitting? Does anyone know?
I don't, sadly... FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Nowrap. Sasata (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't test it properly, because I don't have the problem, could you try, Quadell? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It indeed works. Thanks, Sasata! – Quadell (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "these would most likely had been found"
Done, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "were reported from the Early Cretaceous Rabekke Formation in 2008" is ambiguous. It sounds like someone stood at the formation during the early Cretaceous and reported from there, which is unlikely.
That's pretty much the convention within geology/palaeontology, a formation is Middle Jurassic in age, therefore a Middle Jurassic formation. Not sure how to word it differently. See also the titles of several of the source titles for examples. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted a reword here. If you don't like the change, feel free to revert and word differently, so long as it doesn't say they were reported from a formation in the past. – Quadell (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I must have misunderstood what the problem was. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Should the E be capitalized in "Early Cretaceous"? Or the M in Middle Jurassic?
That seems to be the convention in these papers, but it does vary. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: Capitalize "in addition to Dromaeosauroides and a possible titanosaur..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing: The first paragraph of "Classification" claims "It is unlikely that a genus would survive for 60 million years". That sounds to me like the sort of interpretation that should really be sourced. (I don't find support at Bonde and Christiansen, the citation at the end of the paragraph.)
The paper says "it appears highly unlikely that the same genus should span more than 60 million years" (page 24). FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! My search-powers must have failed there. Nevermind. – Quadell (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All should now be addressed, though some is slightly unresolved. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very close to supporting. Still deciding on prose issues. – Quadell (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my objections have been resolved. This article meets all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - reading through - nice article and an engaging read. queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3–4 metres (9 ft 10 in–13 ft 1 in) in length, and weighed about 40 kg (88.2 lb). - the imperial units here are too exact given the metric ones - I'd be reducing them to one significant figure.
150–180 kg (330.6–396.8 lb) - same as above.
So you mean remove the stuff after the full stops? FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd say 10-13 ft and 330-400 lb as this would be using the equivalent level of exactness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm useless with numbers! FunkMonk (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, you can always do {{convert|3|to|4|m|ft}} which gets you 3 to 4 metres (9.8 to 13.1 ft). Iainstein (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, added! FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can add it for any weight or length. If you want I can add template:convert instead of all the "150-180 kg (330.6-396.8 lb)". Iainstein (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be nice, if you have the time. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it now. Iainstein (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a style thing for which there is no correct answer but I would always say, "family dromaeosauridae rather than "dromaeosauridae family" - the latter just looks and sounds odd to me but others' views may differ....
I have no strong feelings about this, will fix. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking pretty good - need to read again but no other prose glitches are jumping out at me....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Just a few queries and niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Robbedale,—redlinked name of place seems pointless when it isn't even mentioned in the Jydegaard Formation article
Added to Jydegaard Formation as location. Iainstein (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand, they're separate formations, but part of the same "group". FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a Robbedale Formation and the Robbedale region of Bornholm, which is in part of the Jydegaard Formation. Iainstein (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, I thought we were talking about the formation, Robbedale is the location that the formation is named after. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the only likely place for dinosaur remains to be discovered on Danish territory, since the only Mesozoic deposits... and the only one which has been scientifically named... It is only known from two teeth, —too many "only"s, second and fourth are redundant or replaceable
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Cretaceous—link at first occurrence
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • because of their similar teeth—not clear what "their" refers to:
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • highly-mobile—we don't normally hyphenate after " -ly"
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denmark (yellow) —On the map, my poor old eyes can only see white. Colour codes as FFFFFF, so I doubt that it's only me.
Well, my eyes are probably worse, I'm colourblind, so I take your word for it! FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fossil Project sifted sand... the fossils they discovered. —singular subject ->they
Removed "they". FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feces—Most of the article is BE. Two occurrences
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • most-likely—why is there a hyphen between an adverb and its adjective?
Think these were added by the copyeditor. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blood grooves—I have no idea what these are. Sounds like vampiresaurus.
A bit hard to explain, it is basically just lines on the teeth, where blood flows. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil,. —Why comma-full stop?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears something went wrong? The article is still a nominee? FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is no longer a candidate; it has been promoted and listed. We have (continuing) problems with the bot not running. If you ask Maralia nicely, she might manually close this FAC for you and add the star. VoxelBot is becoming a pain in the arse and I think we should seek a replacement. Graham Colm (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks, I'll just wait then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dromaeosauroides/archive1&oldid=1046367219"