Talk:Achelousaurus

Date confusion

The article says that Sampson named the animal in 1996, but in the table on the left-hand side of the page, it says "Sampson, 1995". Which is true? Or did he only give it a name a year after he published the description? Or am I not reading this correctly? 71.217.98.158 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Typo. It was 1995. J. Spencer 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1994 in fact :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There still seems to be a few instances of 1995 in the history section. Should they all be changed to 1994, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

No. There was a published abstract in 1994, validly naming the taxon as it contained a sufficient description, and the full-length article in 1995.--MWAK (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I wonder if I ever saw that abstract then. But in that case, the following sentence should be changed? "Until 1995, only one new genus of centrosaurine dinosaur had been named since". FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, we could change it but this jars a bit with the 1995 article (i.e. the source of the claim) presenting itself as the naming article. It was written without taking into account a pre-existing abstract.--MWAK (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Confusing situation, nonetheless... Now we're here, I think we could need some more ceratopsian FAs... I wonder how much of the text here could be reused in Einiosaurus (by just copy-pasting). FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite a bit I'd say :o). But it would be more fun to reformulate, also avoiding objections of redundancy. I'll give it a try. However, I would postpone a full FA process until Scannella has published his research. He might conclude that the taxa are synonyms...--MWAK (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, is this underway? Any abstracts? I wonder which would become the senior synonym... Given the pretty large variation within other ceratopsian species, I've wondered the same... It could seem Einiosaurus is just an ontogenetic stage towards Achelousaurus. So yeah, maybe work on Einiosaurus should be avoided until then... FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No abstracts, I believe, other than the one we are already giving. I vote for Achelousaurus.--MWAK (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

pronunciation doubtful

Resolved

The pronunciation does not seem to fit the spelling - the syllabification is off. A typo somewhere? kwami 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Process or parietal?

Hi, MWAK, you changed "process 3" to "parietal 3", which would seem logical, but Sampson 1995 specifically states: "Centrosaurus has a medial pair of hooks (here termed Process 1) that are large, rugose and project anteriorly (Fig. 8A). Laterally from Process 1, Process 2 in Centrosaurus is a large hook-like structure that curves medially". It seems Sampson 1995 may be the source that introduced these terms, so it must be correct, no? Sampson repeats the same terminology in his 1997 paper.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a very good point... Indeed Sampson in 1995 and 1997 introduced this numbering. He calls the epiparietals, in his 1995 paper, "Process 1", "Process 2" etc. in the main text, capitalised but not shortened to "P1" or "P2". In figure eight he numbers the epiparietals but without a "P". In figure four he numbers them "P2" to "P7" but in the legend of the diagram this is explained as "parietal marginal processes". I'm not sure when authors first began to use the shortened form in a normal text. The earliest I could quickly discover, is Ryan's description of Albertaceratops in 2005. In it Ryan uses phrases like "P3 process" or "processes P4–7", from which it is unclear whether he feels that the "P" simply stands for "process". In the legend of figure 7 it says "P3–7, parietal processes #3–7". In his 2007 description of the same genus, he typically calls them "parietal process Px" or "parietal locus Px".

So, it's complex :o). Perhaps it's best to call them in this article "Process 1" etc. as this is clearly the form Sampson used in 1995, and avoid the shortened "P1" as anachronistic. This would also avoid the problem whether "P1" stands for "Process 1" or "Parietal Marginal Process 1" — or whether perhaps "Process 1" is actually short for "Parietal Marginal Process 1". Also a footnote might not be amiss explaining that this numbering system was more formally presented in SAMPSON, S. D., M. J. RYAN, AND D. H. TANKE. 1997. "Craniofacial ontogeny in centrosaurine dinosaurs (Ornithischia: Ceratopsidae): Taphonomic, behavioral and phylogenetic implications". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 121: 293–337.--MWAK (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that is best to use the full term then, though I was pretty convinced that fig. 4 showed that "p 2" and "process 2" were equivalent. But as you say, the caption is ambiguous. I have not been able to find papers by other writers that actually explain the meaning of "P" either... FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that Sampson had "process" in mind — which had escaped me completely — but his own mind could not have avoided associating P with "parietal". That association must be much stronger in more recent papers. I wonder whether any paper numbers the episquamosals as S1, S2 etc. :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix ups! I'm in the process (or parietal?) of expanding the article for GA/FA, so feel free to add any suggestions or text. I'm currently waiting for some chapters from the 2010 New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs book, so I'll be kind of stuck until I get those... But next is to add the Hieronymus et al. interpretations of the keratin covering (free paper, luckily)... The availability of nice images you mentioned is exactly why I chose to expand this over for example Einiosaurus, which has considerably less. But some of the life restorations have some inaccuracies, which I'll have to fix... FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A very worthy subject for FA! It reminds me that the Dutch article had been a quick fix and is still distinctly subpar...I'll improve it and from this likely some insights will follow bearing fruit here.--MWAK (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool! One thing I've been unable to find is when the original specimens were discovered... Could be a nice addition. Also, I remember you've expressed disinterest in the GA/FA process in the past, but if you're interested, we can make it a co-nomination... FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it's a mere formality ;o). I'd be honoured to be your co-nominator, FunkMonk. Horner c.s. was working these bonebeds since 1985, but the actual Achelousaurus material seemed to have been found and collected in 1987, with involvement of Sid Hofsteader and Carrie Ancell. We can source the date via Dodson (1996) and the names via Fossilworks — and I have to check Horner (1992).--MWAK (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Heheh, beyond writing, it would only include hanging around to answer queries by reviewers when the time comes. I think the process is worth it, because once an article is featured, the amount of watchers will increase, so vandalism will be detected earlier, and the visibility of the article will also increase, which will attract readers... FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A review process reveals how laymen receive such texts, so that would be interesting :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and to make it more understandable... I forgot to mention that writing FA articles is also a good way to make "recognised" examples to follow for other writers, which is why I think it would be good to have at least one FA for every larger group of dinosaurs. Incidentally, if we get this article promoted, it will be the first new ceratopsian FA in 10 years (since Styracosaurus in 2007). And by the way, if you have any suggestions for how to improve the three restorations in the article, feel free to add them here. I've fixed most inaccuracies in the first one, but the two others could need some work... FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I do think the pictures can be improved. But first I'll expand the discovery chapter. I vaguely remembered that the detail in the Dutch article was based on an account by Horner himself in one of his popular science books and at last I identified the pile containing it :o). Dinosaur Lives in great detail narrates his field expeditions of the years 1985 to 1989 and his thoughts on the anagenesis of these centrosaurines.

Great, do you have that book? From my part, I can't find more to add to the description and discovery sections, so I'll move on to the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't a typo. My books are literally piling up :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, watch out, the book-pile I had going was overrun by silverfish... By the way, seems the answer for at least when the holotype specimen was found (and by who) was already given in the description of this Flickr image, and confirms what you said:[2] "Achelousaurus horneri holotype MOR 485 Discoverer: Sid Hofsteader, 1987 Collector: C. Ancell, and the 1987 Field Crew Land: PVT. Glacier County". I guess that's not a reliable source, though it is probably based on the museum plaque, but it at least gives a lead... Even odder I missed it, since I uploaded the image to Commons myself in 2011... FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I fight them with Pholcus :o). It turns out that "Hofsteader" is really named Hostetter.--MWAK (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Great big chunk of text you added there! Too bad there are few more relevant images to be added... Maybe it would be nice to show the holotype from the right side as well, since we have such an image?[3] The "Hofsteader" spelling reminds me of my recent realisation that the name of the palaeobotanist (and wife of Phil Currie) Eva "Koppelhaus" (which sounds German) is actually "Koppelhus", and she is a fellow Dane (revealed by her strong accent here[4])... Anglophones seem to have much trouble with continental Germanic names. FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be a very useful image as it clearly shows the limited extent of authentic bone. What also would be fun — and add a lot of image room — is to have a vertical sequence of how Horner imagined the anagenesis to have developed, from Styracosaurus over Rubeosaurus, Einiosaurus, Achelousaurus to Pachyrhinosaurus, e.g. by taking Panzarin's Rubeosaurus and making the necessary adjustments. An awful lot of work but the result would be quite spectacular, I imagine. A good Featured Image candidate. As regards the names, especially the diphthongs give a lot of trouble. Think of Speilberg and Tolkein.--MWAK (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We can almost make Horner's diagram by using the skull diagrams here as basis, only needs Rubeosaurus and Styracosaurus in profile:[5] I can maybe make that by modifying some of the other skulls... FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be really worthwhile, I feel.--MWAK (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Looking really good! My summer vacation just started, so I will have more time for image-editing and writing soon. Still need those chapters from the Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs, guess I have to ping people at the resource request page again... FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's quicker to e-mail the authors themselves? I'll tackle the evolutionary aspects next.--MWAK (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I might have to do something like that, they aren't responding at the resource request page.[6] It seems all the chapters are available as PDFs here[7], do you ave access? Anyhow, I remade the anagenesis diagram, any thoughts?[8] I used the (anachronistic) scientific names of the then unnamed genera, just so it would be less confusing for most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I (apparently) don't have institutional access and I never bought the book. But I know some people who might have access. Also, I have the Rubeosaurus paper. Some titbits might be gleaned from GoogleBooks, of course. Excellent work with the diagram! I'll expand that section. I agree that the present names are preferable.--MWAK (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is starting to look really solid. I can take care of the boring parts (intro, paleoecology), when you're done with the juicy bits... I'll email you the Perspectives chapters if i ever get them... And I'll read through the entire article to see if I think anything needs changing later. As for now, they really like precise citations at FAC, but I can see some of the books you added don't have page ranges? You can either give a range for all the pages used, or we can split the ranges up, like for example how I did with the Witton 2013 book in Istiodactylus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Horner book citations have to be split up. I predict that the article will have grown by about a third before we're done. My work on it slowing down was not caused by a lack of ideas on how to proceed or a loss of interest but by a simple lack of time :o). Now we're at it, perhaps this is a good time to discuss those images?--MWAK (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no deadline, so no rush! Yeah, any thoughts you have on the images would be nice, I have quite a few myself... I already made changes to the first restoration not long ago. I made changes to the other two long ago, before I read the Hieronymus paper... FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, if Hieronymus is right, the nasal and supraorbital bosses would not have had visible ridges, the latter serving as attachment surfaces for a thick keratin layer... You also correctly added another spike. There are two other points of interest. Since Sampson (1995), the interfenestral bar is usually depicted as straight or even convex in side view. However, the fossils seem to be preserved with a standard centrosaurine concave profile and this is confirmed by Sampson (2013). The other point is the form of the smaller spikes. In the LadyofHats image they have these long points to the rear. While this is very cool, it is obvious that the epiparietal posterior base edges, which project a bit because the spikes are slightly imbricating, have been mistaken for the apices.--MWAK (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this picture is useful for comparing: https://twitter.com/MORPaleo/status/870652249533333504 --MWAK (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I'll edit soon. I was also thinking the back here[9] seems too concave. By the way, if you enable your email under preferences here, I can now forward you the missing sources... FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! As regards the Tamura image, I always presumed that the animal was depicted in a special pose deliberately lowering its torso in a threat display. I could be completely wrong of course :o).--MWAK (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, could be, but I'm wondering whether the vertebrae would then be flexible enough to change shape like that... For example, I think the back of an Asian elephant will be convex no matter how it is posed, whereas that of an African elephant will always be concave. Anyway, I can't send you an email yet it seems, you probably have to tick the box in your user-preferences that says "Enable email from other users". FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It transpired I also had to change my e-mail address. Indeed, ossified tendons would have reduced flexibility and the vertebral column could not have sagged anyhow; bending the back would have made it, if anything, more convex. I think Tamura based himself on Paul's Centrosaurus apertus reconstruction, which has a decidedly concave profile in front of the hips. His Rubeosaurus has a very convex back, his Pachyrhinosaurus much less so: if we'd like to see Einiosaurus and Achelousaurus as transitional taxa, this gives some artistic leeway ;o).--MWAK (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've sent you a link. And there goes the myth that all ceratopsids had identical skeletons! We could of course figure out the shape of the back of this taxon since it seems a vertebral column is known, but in the name of said myth, nothing seems to have been published on it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I just received the files. Very, very useful. Many thanks for your efforts in obtaining them! Not only are the postcrania of Achelousaurus still not described, the same goes for the lower jaws, the maxilla, the jugal and the braincase...--MWAK (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Jens! Should we just keep Tamura's restoration as is, to represent another interpretation of what the bosses could look like? The LadyofHat's restoration needs fixes in any case, with the frill processes and spikes all being a bit off. The bosses also seem to look very different from what the fossils indicate, same with the snout and jugal horns... I will be away on a trip the upcoming week, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

He's included in my thanks :o). I think keeping the Tamura restoration in its original form is a good idea, to illustrate different possibilities. Enjoy your holiday! I hope to have expanded the article considerably by then, also adding information on the stratification and ecology from Rogers' studies.--MWAK (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm now back, and this article has grown immensely! Any information you think is missing? I read in one of the 2010 chapters that Horner considers the possibility that TMP 2002.76.1 (with its nasal boss) is old enough to perhaps disprove that Achelousaurus is a descendant of Rubeosaurus (which is younger than TMP 2002.76.1), so I'll add that at least, and whatever else I find. When you think you're done, I'll read the article and place suggestions here. I think maybe the section order/naming could be put more in line with other dinosaur articles, just so we have consistency/follow a "winning formula" (with paleoecology as its own section, evolution a subsection of classification, little things like that). FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back! It has become a bit bigger, hasn't it :o)? Horner's conjecture is now already mentioned in the article. As regards the names of sections, our first priority should be that the titles are at least defensible. "Evolution" is a very general concept. It cannot be a subset of "Classification" which has a very limited scope, the act of formally placing a taxon within the Linnean system — and which is emphatically not phylogeny. Paleoecology is simply a part of Paleobiology. Why should it be a separate section? The "winning formula" could have been the perfection of a learning process, wikipedians slowly discovering what is the most effective ordering of information. Sadly, the process largely failed and were now stuck with an amateurish jumble of incorrect terminology, poor analysis and incoherent narrative structure, that we are doomed to repeat because its has undeservedly obtained the status of "standard". This very article shows the detrimental effects of this failure. If the "Discovery" section should be put after the "Evolution" section, the entire account would become disjointed, as understanding Horner's hypotheses presupposes a knowledge of the way the animals were found. If anything, the discovery section should be at the beginning of the article, just as all popular science books and scientific articles are arranged. That makes for a logical narrative!

There are three main things to do. The Paleobiology section is still weak. There is more recent information available about the Two Medicine and I'll add some of it. Secondly, I haven't systematically checked the 2010 book yet. Finally, the "Description" should be subdivided. I'll do that immediately after I've written the Dutch Corythoraptor article...

BTW, returning to the original subject of this thread: there in fact is a paper using "S" designations for episquamosals: Spiclypeus :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Any vacation for you? Didn't see you had already added the part about TMP 2002.76.1 (wasn't there when I read the chapter), all good! We can use this article as a "proof of concept" for this alternate structure then. Another thing before I read the article, when showing the related animals, maybe we should show their skeletons rather than life restorations? I think it will then both be easier to compare them, but it will also make the image selection under "evolution" look more continuous. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know the Dutch: "When work is your pleasure and labour your lust, then duty is leisure, you want what you must". Come to think of it, maybe I should take a short vacation. Indeed, using skeletons is desirable. We have some good Pachyrhinosaurus skulls but are faced with the problem that we can only show the nasals of MOR 492. USNM 11869, the holotype of Rubeosaurus, has just been determined not to be identical to "Transitional Taxon A". Admittedly, this makes the artwork questionable too as both specimens were combined to obtain an impression of the outer appearance of the animal but it might still be used for a general comparison — and it certainly shows how Horner interpreted the type.--MWAK (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, if it wasn't because I didn't bring a laptop, my short vacation wouldn't have hindered me from editing here either... Oh, what is Taxon A based on then, and what's the paper? If MOR 492 is part of Taxon A, perhaps we should just show that fossil to prevent any ambiguity? Seems another ceratopsian taxon is coming up then... And speaking of new taxa, English Wikipedia has started to lag behind when it comes to creating articles about new dinosaurs... The Ductch and Spanish Wikipedias are always ahead! Seems Corythoraptor was created about an hour ago, but Aepyornithomimus is still missing... FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, MOR 492 basically is Taxon A. The SVP abstract — I was naughty and broke embargo — is already mentioned in the Phylogeny section. As I said, we only have the nasals, which don't quite impress on the reader the amount of morphological change implied by Horner's hypothesis :o). Indeed, the English Wikipedia is lagging despite having half a billion native speakers and thrice that number in the Commonwealth. There was a time when User Rnnsh always beat me to it... Still, Lythronaxargestes is doing a great job! Must have some Dutch ancestry, I suppose.--MWAK (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, my brain almost exploded trying to read that abstract... So it seems they prefer to keep ovatus in Styracosaurus, although Rubeosaurus could be a valid container as well? Or is there something wrong with using Rubeosaurus, since it is supposedly based on characters from different taxa? But if that is the case, how can the genus Rubeosaurus be a synonym of the species S. ovatus? FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed strange and the simplest way to resolve this, is to assume that they initially considered Rubeosaurus to be a nomen dubium, indiscernible from both S. albertensis and Taxon A. In that case it would be superfluous to use a separate genus name Rubeosaurus — though formally valid — and it would suffice to refer to it by its type species name Styracosaurus ovatus. When later deciding it was valid after all, they failed to fully adjust themselves to this fact. Vague notions of Rubeosaurus being "based on" MOR 492 kicked in, leading to a feeling that the name would be invalid when MOR 492 were to be removed from its material. That would be quite untrue. Of course, it might simply be that S. ovatus is the sister species of S. albertensis in their analysis. Another puzzling aspect is their description of the epiparietal configuration. I have a hard time reconciling the abstract with page 162 of the 2010 article. Apparently they concluded that the parietals of MOR 492 had been incorrectly rotated (at least, it always seemed so to me). To make them conform to USNM 11869 while in the correct rotation, the entire sequence would have to shift one position upwards, making P7 P8. But the imbrication pattern shows that P7 really is P7. So, in this line of reasoning, MOR 492 cannot be USNM 11869. This makes one wonder whether USNM 11869 was correctly restored in the first place.--MWAK (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm thinking we should maybe keep the conclusion of that absract as a footnote instead of in the main text (until it is published)? Both because it goes a bit off on a tangent, but also because it is not published and peer-reivewed... Perhaps the elaboration on parietal processes and their definitions would be better in a footnote too, since it is not really about this animal in particular. Anyhow, I've looked through my downloaded papers that deal with Achelousaurus, and only one is not mentioned here: "Comparison of Thermoregulation of Four Ornithischian Dinosaurs and a Varanid Lizard from the Cretaceous Two Medicine Formation: Evidence from Oxygen Isotopes "[10] I'm thinking it may be a nice addition, but I'm not sure where, because the palebiology sections are now very specific. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I agree that placing the results of an SVP abstract in a footnote is the best course of action should the choice be made to include them at all. Lusotitan (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally excluding them seems uncalled for: they are simply sources! Perhaps special care should be taken to convey their preliminary nature. It is true that incorporating the abstract is a bit cheeky at a moment the talks themselves are still three weeks in the future. But those weeks will pass soon enough and whether the information is in the main text or in a footnote does not fundamentally change the situation. Nor is it very relevant whether the text has been physically printed. Of course it may be withdrawn, but that may happen to any article, peer-reviewed or not.

As regards the parietal processes: they are at the heart of centrosaurine taxonomy, so they, and the way they are numbered, should be right in the middle of the main text. And the fact that ground-breaking conceptual analysis of them was introduced in the very article Achelousaurus was described in, should be highlighted, not hidden! In general, it is not a good idea to hide things. An article should not be a puzzle or a maze...

The 1996 article is a good catch! If needs be, we can always add a Metabolism section.--MWAK (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting excluding the info, but to place it as footnotes, like for example what you see at the end of Palmyra.[11] This is where you would normally place such tangentially related info, to keep the main text focused on the subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Information can be placed in footnotes when it would disrupt the narrative of the main text. I don't think this applies here. The 2017 abstract is in itself of little importance but also a harbinger of things to come. Wilson is evidently preparing a complete revision of the entire Styracosaurus-Rubeosaurus-Taxon A-Einiosaurus-Achelousaurus-Pachyrhinosaurus-complex. And Scannella is involved. Will this result in a Acheloumorph, sunk into Einiosaurus? We'll have to wait, reflecting the latest publications.

The numbering of the processes is hardly tangential. We cannot very well avoid mentioning the fact that the spikes represent the P3s. The reader will then wonder how that number is arrived at. So the method behind it has to be explained. That this method was introduced on the occasion of naming Achelousaurus, is not some obscure detail but a clear point of interest. Indeed the method is used with all centrosaurines — but that is why those numbers indicate homology! Al this information is essential for understanding the situation and does not disrupt the account but enhances it. Therefore it would be dysfunctional to hide it in a footnote with the suggestion it would be of low importance.--MWAK (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It's very important, but it's also both unpublished and under an embargo meaning it shouldn't really be here in the first place. If you feel it's necessary to include anyway, I feel putting in a footnote is the proper way to do it for now because of those two points. Lusotitan (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm at least fexible when it comes to inclusion for now (in the formative stages of the article), but I think if GA/FAC reviewers make the same point, we will have to take it into consideration (we also have to have accessibility for the average reader in mind). Anyhow, I will add the metabolism info later today. Anything else we're missing? I've also been editing the LadyofHats restoration, it is a bit of a challenge... FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll add some detail and some info about Paleobiology. However, I have to rescind my earlier promise and will not involve myself in the further GA/FA process. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that it's not my cup of tea :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Awww, well, it could maybe have been an interesting experience! Maybe I'm too used to the process, and all these "demands" may be too intrusive for others. But hey, it can't be much worse than peer-review for journal articles... You'll of course be welcome to butt in during any of the reviews (and I'll acknowledge in the nomination text that you wrote most of the article, but chose not to go to review), and I hope we will still be able to chat on this talk page. But if this is your final decision, do you think you would be able to add page ranges for the books I don't have? That would certainly be a demand at a review, which I would not be able to provide. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll add the page ranges. And it will not end my involvement with the article as such, so we'll have plenty to chat about :o). I'm looking forward to your version of the restoration!--MWAK (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Towards promotion

I requested a copy edit a while ago (which I always do before nominations), but it started early (the wait is usually a month), and it seemed to have resulted in some confusion, so I asked the copy-editor to wait. I think the time will soon come, as this article is now at the top of the queue. So usually we just wait until the edits are finished, and then we fix any inaccuracies that may have occurred, to prevent edit conflicts. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I had at the time been unaware copy editing had been requested :oS.--MWAK (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You couldn't have known, I thought we had at least a month's wait, so I thought I could mention it some time down the line, but it began almost immediately (kind of the copy-editor, of course). I'll see if I can read through the text before and do some edits, I think there are some places where we need to give full names of people at first mention, whereas they now are only named later, and there may be some redundancies in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We're close to finishing the article, I feel. In the context of putting the full names at their correct place, I'd like to first rearrange the chapters, with the discovery section as Chapter 1, like I proposed above. Seems the optimal lay-out to me; see if you like it. As regards the redundancies: Horner's "Three Taxa" are treated twice in some length. I think that's unavoidable as his system had a nomenclatural aspect and a, larger, evolutionary aspect. Combining them would severely disrupt the logical structure of the entire text. If necessary, we could make this explicit.--MWAK (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You convinced me that it is best to change my position again: I'll be happy (well...;o) to be your conominator.--MWAK (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear! I think we can get going with GA nomination very soon (maybe even tonight or tomorrow?), it will probably take a while before someone reviews it, so we will have plenty of time to continue work on the article in the meantime... FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to review it? Legitimate question, I've never been a reviewer before but I'm interested in the process. I've been following your edits to some extent but haven't really contributed, so as I understand things I qualify, but again, I'm not sure because I've only read about the process. Of course, I'd request the help of a secondary reviewer as well, someone removed from the dinosaurs wikiproject whose more experienced with reviewing. Lusotitan 23:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course, but it may be a hard first review for various reasons. It would of course be good preparation to read about the GA criteria, and perhaps look over a few recent GA reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Certainly; I've already started looking at the various previous GA reviews among dinosaur articles. Perhaps you're also correct on it being a bad first review, but I feel that as someone fairly knowledgeable about the subject anyway, I'd be able to give good feedback along a more experienced reviewer that's more of a general reader on the subject. Lusotitan 02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, if you'd rather not have a first-timer as a reviewer, I'd understand. Lusotitan 02:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, it's good with enthusiasm! It is also fairly normal to request second opinions on certain issues anyway, there's an entire field for that in the GA review template. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad to have you as a reviewer! Most reviewers lack the background knowledge to identify content mistakes; in your case that won't be a problem :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Before we nominate, I have some points we could discuss (I'm currently reading the article and doing some fixes). FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• The article is mainly written in US English, so we need to be consistent with that. I fixed some, but will ask the copy-editor to look out.
• We need conversions for metrics, now some are missing for for example kilometers.
• We need to establish how we refer to Jack Horner. "Jack"? Jack? Or John?

My vote is just Jack, and definitely not "Jack" outside of the full name mention, that's been awkwardly standing out to me for a while now. His page's title uses Jack and that's what he's usually known by. Establish John "Jack" Horner early on like you do, then just default to Jack or, primarily, just Horner for the rest of the article. Lusotitan 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The last seems preferable.--MWAK (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• The syncervicals are interesting, but I don't have the paper about them, does it say anything about their function?

I'll check it.--MWAK (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Should the paleoecology section really come before the text about behaviour?

I still believe it should be a separate top-level section. Lusotitan 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I would call it Habitat :o). It's not really all that important. In most papers the ecology, providing a general framework, is treated well before behavioural aspects of the taxon described.--MWAK (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• We may consider using citation templates for all citations, though this is a pretty boring task...

Do you have ProveIt enabled? I use it for all my citations, it's very intuitive. Lusotitan 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know what ProveIt is. Are bots not developed enough yet, to free humanity from such tedious tasks :o)?--MWAK (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Seems we still need to split up the book sources into page ranges. That will certainly be demanded at FAC.

Yeah gotta second this, not having them isn't going to fly. Lusotitan 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Very good point. I'll add them today.--MWAK (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure why classification and phylogeny are separate sections? The former subject seems to include the latter?

What I've done with Nipponosaurus is have classification as the top level section, and phylogeny as a subsection within that covering cladistic analysis. Pre-cladistic stuff is just at the beginning of the section under no more specific header. However, with a taxon named so recently (comparatively), this isn't really applicable. This shows, as the classification section is short, and deals with modern cladistic stuff anyway...?

Also, while I'm here, starting the phylogeny section by going back into anagenesis, which the reader just read a section dedicated to, is weird. That anagenesis section already brought up cladistic analysis ("Horner did not perform a cladistic analysis determining the relationship between the three populations. He assumed that this would result in a tree in which the types were successive branches. Such a tree would as a consequence of the method used never show a direct ancestor-descendant relationship."), so why isn't it just brought up there instead? Also, I noticed later in that same paragraph of the anagensis section, the term "anagenesis" is first used and defined in the text... more than halfway through the section on it. This should clearly begin the section, ending this sentence: "The various types found were not distinct species but transitional forms". Lusotitan 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, phylogeny is not classification. Classification is formally placing a taxon in a named group. It's not science, it's administration. Really, there is little need for the term "Classification" at all. We seem mainly to use it as a vague and imprecise alternative for "Phylogeny", which is apparently some scary word. But then, the article is full of scary scientific words. These can't be avoided, so why not apply one of the most central concepts of modern paleontology? GSP's faux pas can then return to the naming, where it really belongs ;o).

I agree that the term anagenesis should be mentioned earlier. But referring to anagenesis in the phylogeny section — and mentioning cladistics in the anagenesis section — makes sense in that a clear contradistinction needs to be made. As it happens, Horner strongly stresses this point while Sampson could not avoid reacting to it, so our text here nicely follows the scientific debate.--MWAK (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think that instead of a short "size" section, and a paragraph about its overall build that doesn't really connect well with the rest of the "skeleton" section, we could start description with a "general build/bauplan" section, which includes the size and general build text, and then have a section called "skull" instead of skeleton, which seems misleading anyway, since pretty much all of the text is about the skull.

I agree, this seems to be how a lot of the current FAs do it (with the general build/bauplan stuff not being under any more specific header, just description itself). The "keratin sheaths" section could likely go in the new "skull" section as well.

Seems a good suggestion. I'd keep the subsection title, though.--MWAK (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think a "diagnosis/distinguishing traits" section should be redundant here. I think all this info should simply be mentioned within the description of the skull, while noting that these features are what makes the animal distinct. Now it seems repetitive; there is of course a reason to repeat this info in a scientific description, but I don't think the general reader here needs this reiteration.
• This also goes for the second paragraph under "skeleton", which also seems to basically be a summary of what is stated in more detail further down in the text. Do we really need to explain these same features three times in a row?

Eh, it's useful for general readers to have a simpler summary at the beginning of a technical section like that. Lusotitan 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with abandoning the diagnosis. The informed reader is entitled to a clear résumé of the most essential part of the entire article. Achelousaurus is basically just a bundle of autapomorphies :o) (also, when a subsequent description is published, it will be much easier to incorporate the new info). The layperson hereby gets a hint of their importance. Just being told, strewn all through the text, that some trait is "distinctive", will mean very little to him. To the same layperson, a clear picture of how a ceratopid skull works, is essential for understanding the chapter. Otherwise the text will be a confusing mix of horns, bosses, spikes and frill bones that he will be unable to combine to a coherent whole.--MWAK (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't list the diagnostic features anywhere, just that it would flow better with the rest of the text if these features were mentioned in logical sequence within the description. As for a short summary of the physical features, that's what the lead section is for (the lead is supposed to summarise the entire article), and it should probably be moved there, since the description currently in the lead is way too simplified. And again, I don't think most readers will appreciate having basically the same info reiterated no less than four times in the article (once in the lead, once under diagnosis, and twice under description)... I don't think we're doing anyone a favour with that, but I think at least moving the short summary from description to lead would partially solve it, and we could keep the diagnosis. I do think the keratin sheaths should have their own section, like now, since this seems to be the most logical way to split the pretty long description into a smaller chunk. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

But the general skull build should not be confused with the distinguishing traits. The latter are not included in the introducing sentences of the Skull chapter. And these again are not simply redundant in relation to the more detailed account further-on. They provide a short framework that for most people will be sorely needed to make any sense of that account. Expecting them to remember the lead, or clearly understanding how to be guided by the information there, is probably too optimistic :o). And shouldn't the text be understandable at its own?--MWAK (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I think the article looks very good in general now, should we go ahead and nominate? I was sick the last few days, just as we got momentum, but better now, so I can focus my attention here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you recovered! It's simply a very nice article, so let's nominate! You have far more experience in that than I do, so I'm following your lead here.--MWAK (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Done! We can of course modify the article all we want in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor comment... would the Convert template not be better for things like this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, eventually we will probably have to add templates to all. And by the way, Lusotitan, don't know whether you saw the article has now been GA nominated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the MOS clearly states: "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity values". These were not exact measurements, of course, but rough indications.--MWAK (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that is a problem with Template:Convert. See Template:Convert#Round to a given number of significant figures: |sigfig=. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware of this option... In that case, it's best to apply the template, in the desired precision, otherwise false precision is likely to be introduced at some point.--MWAK (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reconsidered and am no longer sure if I want to act as a reviewer. Lusotitan 23:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, any specific reason? Even if someone else starts the review, you'll still be allowed to add your own comments to it, that happens routinely. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Was a bit of a pain, but I've finally made the LadyofHats restoration conform more to the actual skull-shape of the dinosaur.[12] Any further suggestions, MWAK? I didn't model it entirely on Hieronymus' hypothesis, since it would obliterate many of the details. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Great job! It is about as well as could be, without destroying the "feel" of the image.--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and great job handling most of the review! Do you feel ready to go on to FAC any time soon? It doesn't have to be immediately, if you want some time to catch your breath. We didn't get that pesky copy-edit yet either... FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We might as well go forward at once. Again, I'll follow your lead.--MWAK (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, I just wrote a nomination blurb, what do you think? "This article is the first about a ceratopsian (or "horned dinosaur") nominated for FAC in ten years, since 2007's Styracosaurus. This ceratopsian dinosaur is unusual in having bosses where most others of its kind had horns, and it has been theorised to have been a transitional form between horned and non-horned members of its group. We have summarised most of what has ever been written about this animal in the article." FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it with basically that text. But I have a question: what does reference 9 refer to? "In 2017, the reference has been rejected" And what's the source? Do we really need this? FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This text should guarantee some positive attention :o). The reference is about Taxon A not being Rubeosaurus. We can do without until the full paper has been published. If someone notes the contradiction, we can always reinsert it.--MWAK (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, in that case, isn't it more of a debate in the literature than something we have to editorialise about? Whether someone rejects the finding or not doesn't mean the paper itself is rejected... In any case, it's gone now, so doesn't matter... FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's another good reason to remove it: "the reference" didn't refer to the other references but to the referring of the fossil to Rubeosaurus. I was myself confused when I reread it...--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hi MWAK, for some reason I forgot that Sampson explains in detail why he didn't think Achelousaurus and Einiosaurus are sexual morphs of the same taxon, so I was wondering whether you have left this out intentionally, or if it is also an oversight? The article mentions that Dodson raised the possibility in 1996, but it would probably be good to note it had already been considered. This is of course a bit late in the game to bring up, having passed FAC already, but it just shows there's always room for improvement... FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sampson no doubt explicitly rejected sexual dimorphism in 1995 because he was aware of Dodson's opinion. I didn't take this hypothesis too seriously, so thought it redundant to add a lengthy exposition of the discussion. But we can still add it, for the sake of completeness!--MWAK (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Very good addition, I think, you never know if some readers might have taken it seriously... I actually wanted to put it in long ago, but simply forgot it, or thought it was already there... FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I just found a nice free image on Deviantart depicting Achelousaurus[13], but it is shown alongside animals it didn't coexist with, and the ornithomimisaurs are naked... But maybe the image could be cropped to only show Achelousaurus, what do you think, MWAK? Is the Achelousaurus itself accurate enough? The eyes seem a bit too large, but that can be fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a useful image! Apart from the too large eye, I would remove the outer row of decorative scales on the frill. There's no reason to assume there was one and the lack of any correlates on the frill bones strongly argues against its presence.--MWAK (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The same artist made an even better image[14], which I've added. Any thoughts on it, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The artist has absolutely no concept of scaling in relation to distance. The Einiosaurus and tyrannosaur are horrifically overscaled compared to the Achelousaurus. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that really depends on the distance between the two animals. There isn't really anything of a specific scale between them so it is impossible to determine. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious the other two animals are at least a fair distance back. A specific scale can't be determined, sure, but the fact the scale is completely implausible can clearly be established. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, how would you establish it? I agree it is ambiguous (especially due to the frontmost animal seemingly being on some kind of raised area, if that isn't just an illusion caused by shadow), but anything beyond that is over interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The scale would be dependent on the distance of the viewer's eye which is again unknown. So the image does not violate the rules of perspective. However, making the background animals hazy suggests a great depth. The artist has overdone that a bit. But it could just be the dust being a caught by the sunlight. I doubt that the typical reader would conclude that Einiosaurus and the tyrannosaurid are vastly greater.

That aside, the main anatomical problem is again the row of osteoderms crossing the squamosal which very likely was completely absent.--MWAK (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to make it look more like what's indicated by this[15] paper. Now we're at it, I rejigged some images because we got a new size diagram. I whitened the background and did some more anatomical fixes to this[16] image, and placed it where this[17] image was formerly. I though it would be superfluous to have the two very similar images close to each other, and found the higher res more appropriate. But any comments are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the image[18] so it lines more up with what's shown in the paper, and I darkened the animals in the background, which lessens the atmospheric perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

All excellent changes!--MWAK (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Stellasaurus

• Hi MWAK, I hope all is well! I saw the description of Stellasaurus[19] has implications for Achelousaurus, just so we're aware some expansion might be warranted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Funkmonk! Well, I've not yet succumbed to the virus... Indeed there are consequences :o). I'll first create a full Dutch article and then apply the knowledge thus gleaned.--MWAK (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear, on both accounts! I haven't succumbed either, but my PC did, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I just saw the Stellasaurus description says "The species name ancellae honours Museum of the Rockies field palaeontologist and fossil preparator Carrie Ancell, who discovered and prepared MOR 492, the holotype specimen of Stellasaurus ancellae, as well as the holotype of Achelousaurus horneri, and co-discovered the holotype of Einiosaurus procurvicornis" but here we say "The holotype specimen MOR 485 was collected by Hostetter and Ray Rogers". I wonder which is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I had been hoping to do the English Stellasaurus article, if you don't mind. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd think you'd be free to do that. I wonder if we should modify this[20] or this[21] restoration into Stellasaurus... FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Never object when another fellow offers to do the work :o). The images are problematic. On the one hand, they are largely based on Stellasaurus already, on the other hand their technical quality is limited. As regards Ancell, I think they just wanted to say that she prepared the Achelousaurus holotype and was part of the team at the site where it was found.--MWAK (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Are the figures from the new paper free use to be uploaded? Some of them are very nice. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I added one of the photos from it to the taxobox. There is also another photo of the frill from the old Rubeosaurus paper, but we probably don't need both. On the othe rhand, the new paper has an image of the nasal horn that shows it from three instead of just two angles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Stellasaurus paper also implies that Achelou and Einiosaurus did not live at the same time. Should we make any changes to the article accordingly? FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, presently the article already states that the 2020 study does not see Achelousaurus and Einiosaurus as contemporaneous.--MWAK (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That's right, and it seems even the pre-2020 text is not as definite as I remembered. But I was wondering about this image that shows them side by side too[22], if I should make a version that makes them both into Achelousaurus and use that instead? I tried to add info from the new paper, but is there more you think should be added before it is TFA? It was pretty complicated, so I was unsure about how much info about how the various traits evolved should be included. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The image could be changed, of course, but perhaps it has an added value to show both forms, especially as there is no implication they would be strictly contemporaneous. The paper is problematic for me as it is implicitly based on the tenet that anagenesis would be more parsimonious, a premise that I find untenable when applying a correct science of philosophy. Mentioning it would either propagate a falsehood or demand a deeper analysis that is difficult to reconcile with a NPOV...--MWAK (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it can stay as is until something becomes clearer about the issue. Do you think the article currently covers the new paper adequately (the stuff I've added)? FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say so. The deeper aspects of the paper have little bearing on Achelousaurus as such.--MWAK (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok! I had been fearing for a while that someone would synonymise Achelousaurus and Einiosaurus one day, but at least that seems less likely now, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Might still happen :o). Would not be a cogent reason to merge the articles, though.--MWAK (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• In another confusing development, a new article[23] questions the referral of specimen MOR 591 to Achelousaurus, along with other info that should probably be summarised. Notifying MWAK... FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the (very interesting) article concludes that MOR 456 8-8-87-1 and MOR 591 each show a distinctive maturation pattern, provisionally interpreting this within the hypothesis that MOR 591 is a subadult Achelousaurus. Nice to see that they adopt our element identification style for skull diagrams ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it looks a little more confusing with the faded photo underneath the lines? Anyhow, added to the article hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 10:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Happy to review this, give me a couple of days. Looks like fine work at the outset. Vanamonde (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All concerns have been addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources are now reliable for the information for which they are used.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Only minor issue, that of "advanced" vs "derived", has been addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image licenses (and there are a lot of these) check out to the best of my abilities.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No issues

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All concerns addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

• Thanks, I'll ping co-nominator MWAK, since he didn't seem to get the automatic notification. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll also ping Lusotitan, in case he still wants to add some more technical comments. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason for "Spring" to be capitalized?
  • Done. Just being old-fashioned :o).
• Sentence beginning "In August 1986 at a nearby site" is not wrong, but very difficult to follow..
  • The, indeed too long, sentence is now split.
• "near the Canyon Bone Bed, MOR 485." To the uninitiated, what MOR 485 is is not clear.
  • "Specimen" added.
• Prose is a trifle wordy in places: for example, "Because he had already made extensive arrangements for a new field season, he was suddenly forced to seek an alternative site" would read easier as "Having made extensive arrangements for the field season, he was forced to seek an alternative site". But this is aesthetics, and not clarity or precision as such: so I just want to flag it, and leave it at that, not something to affect this review.
  • Well, the source strongly stresses the predicament Horner suddenly found himself in. I tried to convey that a little, also in connection with the serendipitous nature of the finds. Horner wasn't looking for horned dinosaurs but wanted eggs.
• "on the Hadrosauridae family, having less affinity with other" can be parsed multiple ways: need to clarify it wasn't Horner who had the affinity.
  • Done. This never occurred to me :o).
• Some more of the technical terms need linking, I think: Sacrum, brain case, parietals, bosses, squamosal bone, supraorbital horncores.
  • All first occurrences of these terms are now linked with the exception of "boss", which is not likely to have its own article and the special meaning of which is explained in the text.
• " in each maxilla, upper jaw bone, " Something missing there, methinks...
  • Put "upper jaw bone" into parentheses.
• "to prove it is a valid taxon." was a valid taxon, or am I misunderstanding something?
  • Done. Sampson no doubt hoped for a perpetual validity but we shouldn't be too subtle.
• "derived or advanced centrosaurines" Not a fan of the "advanced" terminology, which I believe is somewhat archaic. "derived" is okay: "more recent lineage" or something like that would be even better, and plainer language.
  • I fully agree that "advanced" is an obsolete and dangerous term. But it still has an explanatory value. "More recent lineage" stresses a temporal aspect that is really absent in the source. It is the morphology that is relevant here. Also, the reader would be justified to wonder which lineage we are referring to exactly, which we would be unable to answer — because the source refers the morphology. We can apply scare quotes to "advanced".--MWAK (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

We could also add derived in parenthesis, or the other way around? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That would then be the other way around, if "advanced" is objected to. Of course there are a great many parentheses in the text already. If only for the sake of typographical variety they might be alternated with dashes, clauses, ors, or id ests :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the source says "advanced" ("derived" seems to have been favoured later), so we should mention the term in any case. I had a similar issue at Stegoceras, where I used both terms, though chronologically according to the sequence of cited papers. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Weellll, I'm still not too happy about this. Yes, sources say it; but they also say other things which we ignore because the concepts are dated or proven to be incorrect...in this case, if we want to be clear to the layman, I think we ought to say "derived" and then add a parenthesis to say something like "diverged greatly from the ancestral form". If that is too wordy, I think even "more evolved" is better than "advanced".

I agree we should say derived throughout, but in addition to explaining what it means, we could add "the term "advanced" was used at the time" or such? Leaving it out completely seems a bit revisionist. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is reasonable: I do agree that we should explain rather than erase historical terminology. We just need to be careful about using/endorsing it ourselves. Vanamonde (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "One possible explanation could be that this had been caused" bit confusing. "A possible explanation for this phenomenon"? Or some other variant.
  • Reworded.
• "This was confirmed by the assumption" you can't confirm something by assuming it's true, right? I'd suggest rewording a bit.
  • Idiom corrected.
• "Horner et. al. purposely did not name species" Could lose the "purposely"
  • Reworded.
• The "Horner's hypothesis" and "phylogeny" sections strike as a little too detailed, if anything. I don't think its necessarily a problem at GA, but if you want to take it to FAC, I personally feel you need to trim just a little. Phylogenies are revised often: I'm not sure we need each stage in that process.
  • The complete cladistic history was added for the sake of completeness. Though it might be useful for finding studies in which Achelousaurus was included, it is indeed less relevant. Perhaps we could condense it in a future FAC process? Horner's hypothesis is in itself a delicate construction that can best be explained step-by-step. It is also central to subsequent research, which either has to refute it by showing that Achelousaurus is a real species, or confirm it. Of course, Horner himself dedicated entire chapters to his hypothesis :o).
• "convection storms" needs linking or explanation, I think.
  • Linked.
• Unclear why the Dinosaurs depended specifically on Oxbow lakes, or why they were likely to die in the lakes.
  • Clarified.
• I'm uncertain of the relevance of the paragraph beginning "Like with horned dinosaurs"
  • Introductory explanation added.
• "torsion resistance" needs linking or explanation
  • Linked.
• I think you need to link or explain, at least in a footnote, how oxygen isotopes in a fossil allow the determination of body temperatures in the living animal

Since I wrote that text, I've added a short explanation. How does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Earlier it had been suggested" Earlier than what?
  • Changed into "previously".
• I'm a little hesitant about using theses for sources, though I can understand that their use varies by topic. Are the Master's theses, in particular, required?
  • (Now Professor) Roger's thesis was part of the research programme then carried out at the Landslide Butte. It would have had to be mentioned anyway — so we might as well use it as a source :o). VanBuren's thesis is relevant in that it contains some rare information about the postcranial skeleton of Achelousaurus, which otherwise remains largely undescribed.
• Likewise uncertain about the use of personal communication in ref 1.

I've long thought we should snip this. I'll see if MWAK has any comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the basic problem here is that it is always difficult to give reliable sources for pronunciations. Ideally, descriptive scientific research is available showing how a word is actually pronounced. In reality such data are largely absent for dinosaur names and people expect from us some normative instruction to prevent making a fool of themselves. If we want to oblige them, we might as well provide the best advise we can get, which is undoubtedly that of Ben Creisler, who has studied the etymology of these names for decades.--MWAK (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 32 needs a little more information: if it's a book, a publisher, if it's a journal, then a volume or something.
• Likewise ref 33: as of now it doesn't seem to have the name of the publication, unless I'm missing something.

N.b. for editors - they are both from the book New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs: The Royal Tyrrell Museum Ceratopsian Symposium (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to take care of these, there were so many relevant chapters in that book that I just copied and pasted titles quickly to get to the writing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I fixed those two, how does it look? If it is ok, I will do the same with the remaining chapters. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks great to me ;o).--MWAK (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk and MWAK: I think there's only two issues that remain; the first is tweaking the "advanced" wording in accordance with the last comments on the issue above (I'd say it's better to be wordy than potentially misleading here); the second is the pronunciation ref. MWAK is right that we should provide the best sourcing possible, but when such sourcing is still very far from our usual RS, I'd say we're better off leaving out the information altogether; or if it must be included, attributing it inline: "professor so and so described..." Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I presented Creisler in the note and added a short explanation of "derived" in parenthesis, along with a mention of "advanced". Better? FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes indeed, much better. All my concerns have been addressed, and I'm happy to pass this. Thanks for a remarkably detailed and thorough article. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for an intelligent and very constructive review!--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Second that! FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA! Got any other articles in mind? Personally getting Corythosaurus to FA is still next on my to-do list, but I've yet to finish Nipponosaurus. Lusotitan 03:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Next step is to get this to FA, and I'll work on Elasmosaurus next, so it will take a while before I at least get to another dinosaur (which will most likely be Dilophosaurus). But maybe the experience will make MWAK more interested in the process... But yeah, among ornithopods, Corythosaurus isn't too far off, seems I completely forgot I was the one who GA reviewed it, so I probably can't FA nominate it. But IJReid GA nominated it, so perhaps he wants to help. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Basing himself

Hey guys,

As I went through through the article fixing small grammar issues this morning, I found this: "In 1995, Sampson, basing himself on revised data, estimated that the layers investigated represented a longer period than the initially assumed 500,000 years [...]" What does 'basing himself' mean in this context? I thought it meant he was basing his conclusions on revised data, but MWAK says it wasn't based on data. As it stands, I don't know what the sentence is supposed to be saying. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sampson wasn't based on data, his opinion was. Therefore, if Sampson is the subject of the sentence, it is stylistically more correct to say "basing himself on". And yes, this is a bit odd, as language often is. Oddness is never a valid argument against idiom :o)--MWAK (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the wording could be improved, "basing hismelf" seems a bit awkward, and the many insert sentences give a broken flow. How about "Based on revised data in 1995, Sampson estimated", "Based on revised data, Sampson estimated in 1995", or some such? I don't think anyone would think the man himself is based on data, especially not if "based" comes that long before the name. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

But why would it be awkward? It's simply an existing construction. There is also the problem that "based on" often has the meaning of "according to". But we can easily improve the flow regardless.--MWAK (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, he is not basing himself on the data (just like he isn't based on data), he is basing his conclusions/estimate on the data, so I think the "himself" part is a bit superfluous/misplaced. So perhaps "basing his conclusions on revised data" could also work. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean, "basing himself on" is a perfectly valid way to say it? Subjectively it may sound weird, but it's not in any way incorrect. Lusotitan 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this is simply an existing idiom. You're not supposed to analyse whether it's logical! Of course, both possibilities are idiom. Let's compare them. If we say "Based on these data, Professor X concluded...", this is ambiguous and rather colloquial. "Basing himself on these data, Professor X concluded...", is an established, unambiguous but more formal construction. Ideal for an encyclopedia.--MWAK (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, both are correct, in any case, I think the new version is better, as the text is less broken up. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• On another formality note, do you think we should list "Centrosaurus horneri" as a synonym in the taxobox, MWAK? Though his reasons seemed thin, I guess this synonyms are technically as "valid" as any other published synonyms? They don't seem to be nomina nuda after all. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would not call Paul's names nomina nuda. But I fear that the Wikipedia taxoboxes are silly enough as they are, a curious mixture of real science, protoscience and OR, and are best kept as lean as possible.--MWAK (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, I wondered about it because someone added some Paul synonyms to the Gallimimus taxobox, which no one else recognises either, and on my screen, it makes the box clash with the first image. In any case, I redirected Centrosaurus horneri here, which should be warranted. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, their sheer size can be annoying :o). The names are of course simply published synonyms within a scientific context and therefore must be mentioned somewhere.--MWAK (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead photo

"Skull of holotype specimen MOR 485 (with reconstructed parts in blue)". Blue? Davidships (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Or turquoise? To be honest, I'm colour-blind, but of the red-green variety, so though it shouldn't affect how I see blue, feel free to suggest another description. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is mainly the lower jaw, that looks a combination of grey (perhaps a tinge of blue in that) and very light pink to me - compared with all the real blue (light and dark) that I can see on every WP page. But perhaps I have a different deficiency. Davidships (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, should we try with grey (gray, since it's US English) then? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with gray, but perhaps we should have a "third pair of eyes" to comment? Davidships (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll ping my FAC co-nominator MWAK, he must have looked at the photo a few times... FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a light slate grey with some funky lighting overhead to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems a cool lilac. Calling it blue-grey might be best to discern it from the grey-brown of the authentic bone remains.--MWAK (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, is everyone happy with blue-grey? Wow, this is a great example of gaining consensus on Wikipedia, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep!! Davidships (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Done! FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Error in the article of Dinosaurs being that old

The saying is the truth will set you free. The word Dinosaurs was invented or coined by Richard Owen back in 1842. Prior the reference was dragon or serpent. So therefore, I would guide you to the Bible in the book of Job and Isaiah there you will find man coexisted with dragons. But don't take my word, check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8181:3A0:51AF:3087:D6C4:1E66 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

These are references to Leviathan, clearly a sea monster, a concept that might have been inspired by living whales and crocodiles. Known mesozoic non-avian dinosaurs, with the dubious exception of Spinosaurus, did not inhabit the sea. But we do not need the Bible to prove that man coexisted with dinosaurs: after all birds are dinosaurs. Such coexistence does not imply that the group could not be very ancient nor is this possibility incompatible with the Bible.

This article is about a scientific concept of a certain animal. It relates the scientific consensus about its age. The only error could reside in failing to do so. Wikipedia does not strive to represent absolute error or truth.--MWAK (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, when it comes to age, I'm prety sure the Bible itself does not state how old the Earth is supposed to be, that was somehow deduced by mere humans reading the book instead... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It is certainly not to be seen as a biology text book :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Is 1994 or 1995 the date of naming?

It has been argued that 1995 is the valid date because Art. 9.10 ICZN would indicate names in abstracts as non-valid. However, this is based on a misunderstanding of said article. Let's consider the text:

[Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code] 9.10. materials issued primarily to participants at meetings (e.g. symposia, colloquia, congresses, or workshops), including abstracts and texts of presentations or posters

From this it is obvious that a name in an abstract is only invalid if that abstract was mainly issued at a meeting. If the abstract is also published in some abstract book edition, the name is valid. This very possibility is adressed by:

Recommendation 9A. Avoidance of new names and acts in meeting abstracts. Authors should not include new names and nomenclatural acts in abstracts of papers or posters to be presented at meetings. This avoids the appearance that they are published and prevents inadvertent publication if the abstracts are widely distributed (For disclaimer of abstracts volumes, see Recommendation 8G.)

This recognises that an abstract volume being published constitutes a valid publication. That was exactly what happened in this case. I could not discover any disclaimer.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean that Yunyangosaurus and Jindipelta are both valid taxa described in 2019? 2001:4453:5C6:CB00:A093:6F80:ADD2:CE6F (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is a sufficient description as well as a (now obligatory) genus et species nova indication and a disclaimer is lacking.--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)