Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spinophorosaurus/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 June 2019 [1].

Spinophorosaurus edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a long-necked dinosaur which is notable for bearing spikes on its tail, and in being one of the most completely known members of its group from its time and place. We have summarised all available sources, including a German book about the expeditions that found the fossils, and the article therefore has a detailed and rather dramatic account of the discovery, which is otherwise rarely possible when relying only on scientific papers. It has been copy-edited, is a GA, and we have been lucky in getting many free images. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from IJReid edit

I might as well begin this off. Article is really well done, not many points but I'll get through them slowly. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to have a dino project veteran comment. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No one had dug for dinosaurs there before" seems too short and choppy in the context
Placed in parenthesis as "This locality (where dinosaurs had not been excavated before)". FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "vertebra" at first mention
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Elche museum"
Redlinked, no article yet. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should mention the model is "Namu" in the image caption
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shonosaurus" just a typo
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They shared a basipterygoid process" it should probably be "they share" IIRC anatomy is present tense
Hm, I'm always unsure when it comes to tense in anatomical descriptions. Would you suggest we should generally stick to the literature standard here and use present tense throughout? Maybe we need a broader discussion at the WikiProject Palaeontology then.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd follow literature standard yes. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length-width ratio of the centra should be 3:1, using a colon.
The elongation index is just a number. But I simplified now and wrote "length-to-width ratio of 3.1:1", is that better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes I didn't realize the elongation was 3.1 X height, got confused because of the "3.1." It's not necessary to include the ratio, but if its not included it may confuse readers because there is no unit and nothing follows the number so it falls directly in front of a period. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might want to mention the Hyposphene-hypantrum articulations limit dorsal vertebrae flexion
May be a general thing, but is it stated in any of the relevant sources? Can't find such a mention, Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provides more context, thus added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern dogs and relatives backwards mates?? I'm not entirely sure that is correct even if it comes from a published paper.
Hehe, it is part of the mating process apparently, I have not watched dogs mate in real life, but apparently they get stuck together after the initial phase. If you don't want to soil your browser history, Google images has plenty of examples... But here are some diagrams:[2][3] You think it should be added it's only part of the mating? The source specifies "and part of the “tied/lock” phase of mating in some Carnivora (Mammalia), such as Canis sp." FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think specifying its only part of it in dogs would be useful hehe. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned, and linked to Canine reproduction, which even has a photo of this... FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(and one of the earliest known members of that group)" seems a bit redundant following a note it may be one of the earlier spinosaurids, perhaps remove and simply reword the preceeding mention to include this?
Reworded to "while the fourth belongs to what may be one of the earliest known members of Spinosauridae". FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeo I've got absolutely nothing important now, Support from me. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Having a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks and reads really well. The only quibble (which is not a deal-breaker anyway) is, Spinophorosaurus has either been classified as a very basal sauropod outside Eusauropoda, or included in that group. - just thought it might have made more sense in English to say something is within a group or just outside it (i.e. reverse the classification), though the importance/likelihood of it being basal might be a good counterpoint to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to the following, better? "Spinophorosaurus has been classified as either a very basal sauropod, or inside Eusauropoda, a more derived group." FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique edit

Lead

  • were to be — "are to be"?
Hard to say, no sources state whether this has been done yet or not. But once it is confirmed, the text will be changed accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of inconsistent abbreviations, e.g., "13 metres (43 ft)."
Think I got them all. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the source of the generic name) — Covered in the first paragraph, no?
Yeah, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery

  • Perhaps just title "Discovery"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More inconsistent abbreviations, e.g., "30 kilometres (19 mi)." These can be cured by (in this example) going from {{convert|30|km|mi}} to {{convert|30|km|mi|abbr=on}}, which gives you 30 km (19 mi)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • conducted a large-scale excavation campaign
Seems you missed to add the issue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might have initially wondered if "excavation campaign" was somewhat redundant, but rethought the issue and forgot to delete the quotation. Not an issue. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To discourage others from collecting the block, an explosive dummy was fabricated and attached to the fossil — Yikes. Any photos of this?
No (sadly), all available free images of the excavations (and specimens) are used in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any non-free images available? Not for the article, just out of curiosity! --Usernameunique (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I know (maybe in the German book), but this Google Arts slide show (used as external link here) has additional images from the excavations:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skull

  • The braincase of Spinophorosaurus was short from front to back and moderately deep, broad, and of relatively large size overall. — It's unclear what "moderately" is modifying. Moderately deep and generally broad, or moderately deep and moderately broad?
The former. Reformulated to make this clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A CT endocast of the brain cavity — of the paratype?
Not stated explicitly in the paper, but I can see from the specimen number it's the holotype, so added. Also made me notice the specimen number of the paratype had somehow been removed, so added that as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "and in having the brain structure obscured by the former existence of relatively thick meninges and dural venous sinuses." So the structure is obscured by both, and I therefore said "obscured by spaces that housed relatively thick meninges as well as by dural venous sinuses". Is it any better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the more derived — What does this mean?
The easiest way to get it across is to use the now discouraged "advanced", which I have added in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Advanced" is used in two other places: in the lead, and in the first paragraph in "Skull." Is there a reason for doing so if it's discouraged? This is far from my specialty, so I'll leave it to you to make (or unmake, or not make) any changes you think are appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, I'll ping Jens Lallensack to see if we should maybe consolidate this under one term. Likewise with primitive/basal... FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe we should say "derived (advanced)" at first mention, and afterwards stick to "derived". Same with primitive/basal. Hard to avoid these terms. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did so. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vertebrae and ribs

  • contain multiple small, air-filled chambers — "containing"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth linking mamenchisaurids here?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where it has evolved independently — Is the "has" needed?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were more elongate — Is this correct, or should it be "elongated"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

  • which recovered Spinophorosaurus — Is "recovered" the right word?
Said "placed" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

  • The first sentence could be split into two.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeobiology

  • reported radial fibrolamellar bone — "a radial"? "bone tissue"?
It is a fixed term. Added an explanation; hope that helps! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a specialised function of the tail, which is unknown. — I think you mean the function is unknown, but as written it sounds as if the tail is unknown.
Changed to "Together, these features of the tail may have been part of a specialised function, which is unknown." FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another fine article, FunkMonk. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (for copy-edits as well), couldn't have done this without Jens, who probably wrote more than half of it. We'll get to the issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issues should now be addressed, Usernameunique, though it appears you added one point without explaining the issue? FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, FunkMonk, adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As mentioned below, a bit of extra information was just added, if you want to check:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Alt text is needed throughout - [6].
Will look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now added, hope it is ok. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the Source of File:Theropod teeth associated with Spinophorosaurus.png be shown as the actual source document, with a page number, rather than the abstract.
The abstract has a link to the PDF; I usually avoid linking directly to PDFs, both because it might be heavier for some Internet connections, but also because links to PDFs are often changed, so I consider it safer. Also, the current link makes it possible to navigate to other parts of the journal's website (in case one wants related papers or to look closer at the copyright info), which can't be done from a PDF. I can change it if it's important, but this is the reasoning I usually go by. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the reasoning I would use, but I can see its merits. You have thought it through, so fine.
  • All images are appropriately licenced.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • In general the sources appear to be of appropriate scholarly quality. I do have a couple of queries, however:
  • The five references (5, 5, 6, 8 and 10) that are sourced to "Google Arts & Culture" contain very little, and I struggled to find what information in the article text is supported by these refs. As an example, take ref 8.
It is often some interesting context that wasn't mentioned in the German book. For example 8 supports "(showing signs of a professional excavation)". 6 supports "(the shorter route through the Sahara was not possible due to the risk of terrorist attacks); other members of the team arrived by airplane" and so on. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 18: This appears to be an early draft article, the source says "PeerJ Preprints is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary." Can we therefore offer this as a high quality, reliable source?
The citation supports a very uncontroversial fact, though, which is unlikely to be challenged in the final publication (and the author, Michael P. Taylor, is respected); "The vertebral column is almost completely known, and the holotype is one of the few sauropod specimens that include a complete neck". Why this is not stated in one of the published papers is hard to say, but is a notable fact. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a few format issues:
  • Ref 2 is missing page references
I assume this is due to the citation style, where they are shown in-text, will let Jens Lallensack answer. I wonder if it would help to add the book's full page range there? FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we used rp-templates here. Not sure if we are allowed to add the full page range at all (according to Template:Cite book: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source"), but for the record, its 175 pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise ref 3
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise ref 32
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: Retrieval date missing.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • We just discovered a 2018 conference abstract book we had overlooked and added some additional information, in case the reviewers want to check this. The changes are here:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AhmadLX edit

  • "The centra of its vertebrae are 80% smaller than those of Spinophorosaurus". Source ([18]) says they are 80% of the length of Spinophosaurs vertebrae. The two are not the same.
Right, changed to "80% the length of those of Spinophorosaurus". FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1] doesn't say that it was "first German dinosaur expedition to Africa in almost a century" or that "it included ten permanent members." [7] supports only the former claim.
Replaced citation 1 with 2, where the info on the team is from (issue created when text was moved around). FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [12] doesn't actually say that it "is one of the most completely known basal sauropods, it is a good model for biomechanical studies." It should be replaced here with [25], which does specifically say that.
Whoops, must have happened when some of the text was rejigged, fixed by simply removing 12 from the sentence, as the paragraph ends in 25 anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, seems Jens and I had an edit conflict, he already did the edits above anyway (though with some differences), haha... FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2019 (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/Spinophorosaurus/archive1&oldid=1138471930"