Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trachodon mummy/archive1

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].

---

Trachodon mummy

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another dinosaur article, but this time not about a genus, but a unique specimen. This find, one of the most important dinosaur specimens ever found, had profound impact on the understanding of dinosaurs. The Trachodon mummy is one of a handfull of "dinosaur mummies", and is interpreted as the fossil of a natural mummy. The article combines history with cutting edge scientific research, and therefore is hopefully of interest for a broader audience. It just received a copy edit and GA review from user:Gog the Mild. I'm looking forward to comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licensed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Must be the first time we have an article about a specific fossil (rather than a taxon) at FAC. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like there is a duplink in "all referable to duck-billed dinosaurs" and later "Hadrosauridae ("duck-billed dinosaurs")". Seems a bit odd that you only gloss it at second mention, maybe you should stick to calling them hadrosaurids, and keep "duck-bill" in parenthesis.

Fixed. I used "duckbill" as this term was also used by some of the sources, but consequently sticking with hadrosaurid might be less confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I wonder if this AMNH source[2] is of any use? It has some discussion of the mummy.

Thanks, but these are merely a collection of excerts from Osborn (1911), which is already cited. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe move the image under Taphonomy to the left, it clashes a bit with the image above on my screen.

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• There is also some coverage in this old book[3], maybe more contemporary commentary can be found.

Checked it; nothing useable inside but was worth a look at least! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Is the specimen also called "Trachodon mummy" in recent sources? Does the title reflect current usage?

Well, the article had this title before I started working on it, and I always thought this might be an edge case. But thinking about it (and reviewing the actual usage) I think you are right: It does not really reflect current usage, and it would be more prudent to move to a different lemma. What comes to mind is "Edmontosaurus mummy in the American Museum of Natural History" or just the specimen number "AMNH 5060". Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a survey of the sources can give some more contenders we could vote for after the article is promoted? Maybe "Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060" is more concise? Perhaps Edmontosaurus mummy in the Naturmuseum Senckenberg could also be shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060" sounds good, thanks. Other names such as "Sternberg mummy" seem to be ad hoc and may also refer to the Senckenberg mummy. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think this restoration[4] was informed by the mummy, as the integument paper also has a line drawing based on it, and it shows the fused hand.

Great, I was looking for that! You are right, and this fact is even clearly stated in Osborn 1911, where it was first published. Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Osborn knew about the agreement between Sternberg and the British Museum, which gives the latter rights to acquire any of the finds" Gave? I doubt the agreement is still valid...

fixed.

• "he appealed to Sternbergs patriotism" Sternberg's.

fixed.

• "Subsequently, the mummy was scientifically described by Osborn himself" Give date.

added.

• Were the sons adult at the time? Othwewise I'm imagining kids running around in the badlands.

The two eldest were in their 20s, and Levi was around 14. Not sure how to add this; I didn't find the exact date of birth of Levi to give his age at the time of discovery, but I'm on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so one was practically a kid, no way to generalise then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "In 1911, Osborn rhapsodized" Seems a bit hyperbolic, no? I think "stated" or "concluded" could be enough, and less loaded.

changed.

• "The second such mummy, now in the Naturmuseum Senckenberg" Could you explain whether its preservation is comparable or of lesser quality?

added sentence.

• You link both Anatosaurus copei and Anatotitan, which redirect to the same article. Maybe you should only link Edmontosaurus and Edmontosaurus annectens in the article.

fixed.

• "Bottom view of Edmontosaurus annectens mummy" Maybe best to be consistent in how you refer to the specimen.

fixed.

• "This term was later used to refer to a handful of similar fossils with extensive skin impressions" I wonder if we could go into what sets a mummy apart from for example other specimens with skin impressions? I guess it is mainly 3D fossils (not slabs)?

Its just a tradition that hadrosaurid specimens with extensive skin impressions are termed "mummies". This term is loosely attached to various specimens only. There is also the term "mummified skin", which appears to have broader usage. Changed to make this a bit clearer, but its difficult lacking precise definitions.

• "The specimen was found lying on its back, with head and neck being twisted downwards" A bit confusing, since down could be interpreted either in relation to the animal or to its position. How about it was twisted backwards? Would also be consistent with "Both knees were drawn forwards"

Changed.

• "In his 1911 description, Osborn coined the term "dinosaur mummy" for the specimen." and "leading Osborn to coin the term "dinosaur mummy"." Seems repetitive. Maybe second time you could just say in parenthesis "(which led to the coinage of the term dinosaur mummy)" or something.

Removed one.

• "In 2007, paleontologist Kenneth Carpenter suggested that even impressions of inner organs might have been preserved" Still, or before it was excavated? Looks like the body cavioty is hollow?

Still, he didn't give more hints, unfortunately.

• Maybe more images could be worked into the article? For example, if you combine the current hand image with the other one in the paper that show its underside so they could be side by side in the same image? The facial integument in fig 4 could also be interesting (among others) under nostrils maybe, the Senckenberg mummy might be more relevant in the section it is mentioned in? Now there are also two almost identical photos of the specimen from below, one of which could maybe be replaced by a more unique image.

Yes, I will try.

• You jump a lot between past and present tense under description, in some cases you probably didn't have a choice, but in others it just seems inconsistent for no apparent reason. For example "The largest surviving scales are found on the outer side of the arms; these polygonal tubercles were up to 1 cm (0.39 in) in diameter.".

Fixed now I hope.

• "in a 1942 monograph" About what? If that's too much detail, why not just say in a 1942 paper or publication? You expect more context if you specify it's a monograph, I think.

thanks, fixed.

• You seem to cover some of the same ground on nostrils in the skin and nostril sections. Any way to consolidate this? Why is this repeated?

Good suggestion, tried to merge those and simplified a bit.

• "These scales, which measure 3–5 mm" Convert.

done.

• "by an withered" A.

fixed

• "Color pattern" This is perhaps a bit too definite title considering the content, how about "possible color pattern" or "theories about color patterns" or similar?

Changed.

• Could more mummies be listed under "Significance and classification" maybe?

Would certainly provide a more solid background, so added!

• "With the Senckenberg mummy, an additional Trachodon specimen with supposed webbing" Second link to that mummy.

fixed

• "the hypothesis of an aquatic lifestyle of hadrosaurids, although previously considered controversial and speculative" Could you state what it had been based on before? I believe it was because the teeth were thought to be too loose to chew on tough land plants or something.

added.

• "did not feed on soft aquatic plants as previously assumed" I see you mention this further down, but I think it should be stated earlier, when you actually mention the theory first.

added.

• "a highly specialised" The rest of the article seems to be US English (for good reason). Perhaps check for other US/UK inconsistencies.

seems to be the only one, fixed.

• "they remark that the melanin" Why present tense, when the preceding text is past?

fixed.

• "large part of the tail, which is not preserved in the Trachodon mummy" You could clarify they are known form other specimens? One such specimen even seems to be shown in the old paper.

reformulated.

• "by Hopon from 1975" Full name, as with everyone else?

added.

• "Charles H. Sternberg, in 1909,[4][5] and Charles M. Sternberg, in 1970" Seems overly repetitive, why not just "in 1909 and 1970, Charles M. Sternberg assumed"?

These are two different Charles, Charles H. and Charles M.

• "Carpenter concludes from a photo taken" Why present tense?

fixed.

• You mention photos taken during the excavation, any that could be used here?

Principally yes, but I only have a modified version. Will mail it to you for advice!

Added. Maybe the caption could be better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The taphonomic processes" Link, and I wonder if it should be mentioned and explained earlier in the section.

Linked. Not sure how to incorporate the term into the first sentence without blowing it up, but I thought that the first sentence makes clear what the paragraph will be about in any case.

Maybe some Easter egg link, though it's kind of discouraged... FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Carpenter emphasizes that" Why present?

fixed.

• "formed by the bacterial (biomineralization)." Bacterial what?

fixed.

• "One of the finest dinosaur specimens" Best preserved would sound more formal.

fixed.

• Perhaps natural mummy could be linked and explained outside the intro too.

done.

• Natural mummy is also linked twice in the intro.

done.

• ", leading to the now-rejected perception of hadrosaurids as aquatic animals" But this had been suggested even before, it was just more "confirmation"?

The hypothesis was speculative and controversial earlier, only the mummies led to a paradigm shift. But changed anyways to be on the save side.

• "its specimen number is AMNH 5060" Should be mentioned in the article body too.

done.

• "The mummy was discovered lying on its back, with its neck twisted downwards" Problematic, "backwards" would be more clear.

done.

• "and still conected" Just a typo.

done.

• "carcass dryed out" Dried.

done.

• You should maybe be consistent in using quotation marks for the various kinds of tubercles.

I only used quotation marks at first mention to make clear that these are actual terms that have been proposed. Not sure if it looks cluttered if I use them throughout? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• One additional thing I wondered about, how long is the specimen, and how long is it estimated to have been in life? Weight, other dimensions?

I had another look through the sources, but this not stated anywhere, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• The first image caption could maybe say it is shown from above?

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Changes look good. Only thing missing is that some images could be added, and maybe moved around a bit (to create better space and relevance to adjacent text). Tell me if you need help or suggestions.

Ok, I'm not good with images, but I did what I could now. I am open to further suggestions! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I think maybe fig 6 could be used under taphonomy (lower right?) to show how tightly the skin adheres to the bone? FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• The original description also describes the skin on the rest of the forelimb, I wonder if some of that could be added (including maybe fig 10)? Maybe the "hands" section could be "forelimbs".

This is already covered in the "skin" section; I could not find anything significant in addition to that in Osborn (1912); what do you have in mind specifically? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I didn't find it because I searched for "forelimb", as termed in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I took the liberty to upload the highest resolution version of the images here[5] and make them the same size ratio. I also made the order more like the other images used, with the photo before the diagram, so the caption might need an overhaul. The different orientation of the image also leaves more space for another image under Significance and classification, if we want that... Plenty of interesting ones in the paper to add (perhaps plate IV?[6]).

Thanks, looks better! Also added the additional photo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I moved the image a section up, so it doesn't clash with the header below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - the article looks good (nice to see more important historical images come to use), and the next step would be to move it to a more modern title, such as for example "Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060". FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the throughout review and support! Do you think there are less technical complications if I move the page right now, or should I better wait until the candidature is over (as I read from your answer above)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I could imagine a lot of the FAC links and transclusions maybe getting screwed up, not sure, but I've seen it being advised against in other nomination discussions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a coordinator, such as Ian Rose or Laser brain, can advise? FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this -- yes, I prefer to see moves happen after the FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

• Links, redirects, etc are fine.
• An alt text is missing - for File:Pasta - mummified trachodon - AmMusNatHist.jpg.

Thanks, added missing alt text! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Formats

• Publisher locations missing from refs 1, 2 and 3
• Ref 4: OCLC 876719 per WorldCat
• Ref 11: Capitalization: "The world company press"
• Ref 14: lacking ISBN
• Refs 21, 24: lacking ISBN
• Bibliography: Is there any particular reason why this one particular book is listed?

• Quality and reliability: The references all appear to be to scholarly sources, of the standard required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for the sources review! All fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Looking good....queries below...

• The Trachodon mummy is a fossilized natural mummy of a dinosaur. - not a fan of having two "mummy"s in the same sentence, and we're saying a "mummy is a mummy", which sounds odd. I'd somehow combine it with sentence 3. (One of the best preserved dinosaur specimens ever discovered, it was the first to include a skeleton encased in skin impressions from large parts of the body.) - So - The Trachodon mummy is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil(ized remains), the first found to include a skeleton encased in skin impressions from large parts of the body." or something like this.

Adjusted accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• The Sternberg expedition left its family residence in Kansas in early spring - err, it wasn't the expedition's family residence. How about just, "The Sternbergs left their family residence in Kansas in early spring"

fixed.

• Several authors have addressed the question of how the animal died and what circumstances led to its exceptionally good preservation. - "addressed" suggests to me "answered conclusively" - maybe "investigated/theorised/proposed" or something

used "discussed" now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise this is in great shape and well on track to FA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild, part ii

I assessed this at GAN, and as it was clearly FAC bound, gave it a hard time then. Rereading:

• Edmontosaurus annectens, by Charles R. Knight.jpg needs alt text.

added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "between 1 and 5 in (25 and 127 mm) in" Suggest 'inches' in full (|abbr=off) to avoid "in (brackets) in".

changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• The lead gives the size of the scales, but not the size of the specimen, which seems odd.

That is quite annoying, but nothing I can do about: The size of the specimen is not mentioned in any of the sources, surprisingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

How exceedingly strange. OK.

• "In search for acquirers of potential fossil finds" "for" → 'of'.

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Day after day hoping against hope we struggled bravely on. Every night the boys gave answer to my anxious inquiry, What have you found? Nothing." Is there a reason for this being a block quote? The MoS would suggest otherwise. Likewise some of the other block quotes.

I have to admit I am a bit reluctant here. Hm, the MoS states that you have to use block quotes if there are more than about 40 words, but it does not explicitly state that you should not use them if there are fewer. The problem is that I have to use block quote for the longest quote of the article at least (to comply with MoS), and using two different quotation styles makes it looking inconsistent. Not sure what would be the lesser of the two evils here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. IAR.

• "he was unable to evaluate the fossil despite the high asking price of $2,000" This reads as if it were the high asking price which prevented an evaluation. (I know that you go on to give a fuller explanation.)

Reformulated, hope it is better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• "in three articles published in 1911 and 1912,[9][8][9]" I suspect one of these cites of being incorrect.

Indeed. Thanks for spotting that. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "As dinosaur skin impressions were previously known only from few fragments" Suggest 'from a few fragments'.

Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is image sandwiching in the "Significance and classification" section.

Fixed, I hope. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Although the skeleton of the Senckenberg mummy is more complete, it is less well preserved than the Trachodon mummy in other respects" IMO "in other respects" is redundant.

True, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "was excavated in the Hell Creek Formation" "in" → 'from'.

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "In the Maastrichtian age of North America" I don't understand this. Do you mean 'In North American specimens from the Maastrichtian age'? Should "age" have an upper case A?

Yes, that was incorrect. "In the Maastrichtian of North America" would have been correct; Maastrichtian here refers to the succession of rocks. But took your wording. No, "age" needs lower case A I believe, as this is no formal name. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "25% are referred to Edmontosaurus" I don't actually know what this means.

Yeah, "referred" in this context appears to be technical speech used in paleontology. Changed to "belong". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "with head and neck being twisted backwards" Suggestion: delete "being".

Removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "shows a regular row of rectangular lobes at least in the tail area" What does "at least" add to the description?

right, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "in accordance with an 1883 account of Edward Drinker Cope" Suggestion: "of" → 'by'.

true, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Today, the webbing-hypothesis is widely refuted" I am not sure about the hyphen.

removed hyphen. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Cite 7 should have a location.

added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• "the circumnarial depression" I am sure that there is a reason for this being in italics; what is it?

Only to mark it as the technical term that was just explained, but removed the italics as it is inconsistent with the rest of the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, again. Working on these! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

All done now, except for the issue with the block quotes; please give me some time to consider that issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Leave them in. A fine, fine article. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.