Talk:Ampelosaurus

WTF?

Am I the only one who thinks that the skull on the reconstruction, the drawing and the partial one in the display case all look like they come from completely different animals? Abyssal (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If the skull is only known from that incomplete mess shown in one of the photos, then the real complete shape is probably anyone's guess, thus you get different interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I would've thought there would be more material. It reminds me a bit of Nigersaurus around the mouth. Abyssal (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since it's a sauropod, it might have a lot of post cranial material, but only crappy skull remains. In any case, I think the life restoration is a bit unlikely, as it should probably resemble other titanosaurs just a bit more I would assume. But who knows. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• If someone can find a more likely restoration of the skull, I can modify the head to fit. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Changed the head, now it looks kind of like the Loch Ness Monster, less like Godzilla. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Plos One Article

I was browsing the plos one website publications and randomly came across doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054991. It is a whole study of the neuroanatomy of Ampelosaurus. This could greatly expand the article and provide some brand new brain reconstructions and braincase images. Is anyone in to expand this article or upload the images? Iainstein (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi there, there are a few issues with this article that should probably had been addressed before nomination, but here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• First, two first paragraphs under Discovery need sources.

done

• The Etymology section is completely redundant, the same info is found under discovery, where it should be.

done

• The external links could be cut, they don't add anything.

done

• And some more serious stuff, there is quite a bit of undue weight to a single paper, the recent PLOS One about a braincase. Furthermore, it seems this has been cut and pasted or something, because the language is extremely technical and non-encyclopaedic in places ("A beautiful rendering of the right labyrinth could be arrived at"?).

removed less important info

• As mentioned above, this article relies too heavily on a single paper, which is not even about a specimen that definitely belongs to this genus. It should be more balanced, and more text should be devoted to the type species, less to the uncertain one. For example, there is very little mention of the spikes, which are probably the most notable feature of this animal. So try to summarise more of the papers about the type species, and get all the papers you can about it.

Done, I think

• The cut and paste stuff should be rewritten in summary form and simplified. Not because of copyright issues, that is no problem, but because it is simply too hard to understand, and too detailed.

Mostly done

• See also the FAC for Nigersaurus[1], where the reviewers pretty much wanted everything simplified. A good guideline for what needs changing.

Check over whats been done to see

• Eggs have apparently been referred to this animal. Article doesn't mention this.

There is one ref, Vila, B., Sellés, A. G., Fortuny, J., Galobart, À. and Jackson, F. 2009. Re-Assessment of the European Megaloolithid Clutch Morphology. Fourth International Symposium on Dinosaur Eggs and Babies (Varricchio, Horner, Jackson and Selenitsky eds.). Museum of the Rockies Ocassional Paper, 4: 31. that might have the info, but I can only find it on Academia.edu and it doesn't have even an abstract because "the author has not uploaded this paper". If you could try to find it elsewhere it would be great. Iainstein (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Try the resource request page, usually works. FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• More to come after these essential issues are fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Hi, there is still way too much material on a single braincase, that part could be cut down to half with no problem. It is still way too technical, and too detailed, needs to be summarised even more. So I'm not necessarily asking to cut stuff out completely, but to simplify it. Just to take an example: "The first virtual cranial cavity endocast of a dinosaur (a theropod) was generated from CT scans more than a decade ago. This method was first applied to a sauropod some years later, nearly a century after the first published detailed figuration of a physical endocast made from a specimen of this group. In the present case, the processing of the CT data resulted in a very close rendering of the cranial endocast and endosseous labyrinth." Language like that does not make sense in an encyclopedia, that is the language of researchers who are presenting their findings. As is, it reads as if this article is a research paper, which it certainly isn't. All the copied material needs to be changed accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Cut and simplified. How is it? Iainstein (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Still way too much, half the article is dedicated to a braincase that may not even belong to the taxon, and all the small subsections there could be merged. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Cut info on parts of the skull by about half, tried to simplify other bits. Iainstein (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at the rest of the article and see how it flows together now. FunkMonk (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, section based on a single paper still is way too detailed and technical, try to summarise it so it is half as long, and ignore overly technical terms. Furthermore, all technical terms need wikilinks. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• In addition: "a tooth of which was described in its original description." Why is this needd in the lead?

It isn't, fixed.

• You should write A. atacis instead of Ampelosaurus every time it is specific to that species.

from what I can tell, done.

• For some reason, more text is devoted to teeth in the intro than to any other anatomical feature. This should be balanced, remove some detailed text about teeth, and add some about other features.

Well teeth are one of the few item actually described in the description, but I have tried to make it more balanced.

• The lead uses too technical language in general ("The ilium does not present a craniolateral developement of the preacetabluar blade." Really?). In general, if you don't understand a sentence yourself, it means it needs to be heavily simplified or simply left out.

simplified.

• See the two sauropod FAs (Diplodocus, Nigersaurus) for how to condense and prioritise such language, and look at FAs as precedents in general. This article does not need to be that long, if all the filler is just overly technical language that only an anatomist would understand. Better to have it shorter yet understandable. This is a problem with your other GA nominations as well. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I have fixed these comments. I have finally found an important article doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2012.05.004. If anyone can access it it could finally solve the eggs or not problem. Iainstein (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The resource request page is always a safe bet. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• "all but a braincase, which was named A. sp." which were referred to. And sp. should not be italised, it's not a name. And there is no actual second species, the text merely says: "However, it appears to differ from A. atacis in some traits such as the greater degree of dorsoventral compression and the presence of proatlas facets. The specimen is, therefore, provisionally identified as Ampelosaurus sp."

Fixed.

• "A new, undescribed species, known from a braincase" Likewise incorrect, you can pretty much only say that a "braincase of a similar animal has been provisionally referred to A. sp."

Fixed.

• "All the differences, even in the limb proportions, has been linked to individual variation." Fix grammar, and "even" is a loaded word.

Fixed.

• "A right scapula was discovered. The scapula was found to be assiciated with a coracoid." Please no short, disjointed sentences.

Fixed.

• "A. atacis is known from a few, well-preserved teeth and some cranial material. A right scapula was discovered. The scapula was found to be assiciated with a coracoid. The blade of the scapula, contrary to titanosaurs, is triangular, larger closer to the base. The blade narrows distally instead of showing an expansion. A. atacis is also known from a pubis about 75 centimetres (30 in) long and an ilium. Many femora have also been preserved." You start describing bones before listing the rest of them, looks messy. Name all the bones first, then describe them.

Done.

• " which shares a number of phylogenetically restricted characters with A. atacis from France, such as a flat occipital region. However, it appeared to differ from A. atacis in some traits such as the greater degree of dorsoventral compression and the presence of proatlas facets." Way too technical and detailed for the lead.

Done.

• "The specimen has been provisionally identified as Ampelosaurus sp. A. sp is known from a fused braincase. It is most likely a mature titanosaurian, in which the bones have largely fused together." You have already mentioned this in the lead.

Fixed.

• "Attention has made Ampelosaurus arguably one of the most well-known" This is quite weirdly written.

Fixed.

• "Like most sauropods, it would have had a long neck" You cannot start the first section of an article about a subject by referring to it as "it". The article still has some big problems, and you should go through it and copy edit it again. There are still way too many unnecessary details and technical language, as well as writing issues.

Fixed.

• The section about a braincase is still way too bloated, it should really only be one section, not an entire page. Much of it still reads like it was copied straight from the paper.

Possibly done. Iainstein (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looking much better. Could the cladogram be restricted to titanosaurs? Not sure why brachiosaurs and diplodocoids are included. Takes up much space.

Done

• "A possible unnamed species has given Ampelosaurus an age reaching to the latest Cretaceous, about 66 million years ago." No range is given, so sentence makes little sense.

Done

• "The blade of the scapula, contrary to titanosaurs, is triangular, larger closer to the base. The blade narrows distally instead of showing an expansion." Too esoteric for the lead.

Done

• "all but some material has been assigned to A. atacis" Anything other than the braincase? If not,the sentence is somewhat superfluous.

Done

• "Fossils of titanosaurians have been found on all continents and their remains are abundant in a number of Late Cretaceous sites. Nonetheless, the cranial anatomy of titanosaurians is still very poorly known." Not relevantin the lead about this particular genus.

Done

• "which shares a number of phylogenetically restricted characters" Way too technical language.

Done

• "It is considered to be a dwarf sauropod by Coria et al." Why? See, this is the kind of stuff that needs elaboration, not detailed description of obscure bones.

Done

• Any reason why three different sections about the skelton are needed? One or two is enough, they aren't that long. No need for obscure terms like "axial" in the titles.

Done

• "Originally, only a preliminary description of a tooth and some dorsal vertebrae." Badly formed sentence.

done

• " greatly differs in the fact that its teeth are 21 millimetres (0.83 in) high and has a maximal width of 6 millimetres (0.24 in)" Hard to see how great this difference is, when no measurements are given for the other animals.

done

• "and the Dongargaon braincase" Too esoteric wording. "a braincase from Dongargaon" or such would make more sense. In general you have to make the text much more reader friendly, also in other articles.

done

• "vineyard on which the southern border of the layer in which the genus was found." Weirdly written, too convoluted.

done

• "The cranial elements have a general morphology similar to titanosaurians Antarctosaurus " What are these elements? Why so little detail on them, and so much on other things?

done

• "Recently, a new species of Ampelosaurus was discovered." Misleading, for reasons explained above. Also, "recently" is not a good thing to write, since this article will probably exist for years to come.

done

• "an exceptional fossil site" Loaded word.

done

• "In 2007, in the course of the construction of a high-speed rail track connecting Madrid with Valencia, an exceptional fossil site was discovered in the Villalba de la Sierra Formation at a locality named “Lo Hueco,” near the village of Fuentes, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. Over the course of several months, a large-scale emergency excavation by over 60 paleontologists and 100 manual workers allowed thousands of specimens of plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates of late Campanian-early Maastrichtian age to be saved.[6]" No mention of the actual subject of the article.

done

• "(Upchurch et al., 2004)" Write "according to these authors" or some such, this is not a research paper. Also fix this in other places in the article.

done

• "with the absence of hyposphene-hypantrum structures in the dorsal vertebrae; strongly procoelous caudal vertebrae; and the bony texture of the presacral vertebrae composed of very large cells." Extremely technical, needs to be completely rewritten and explained. I told you to do this earlier, it counts for the entire article.

done

• Histology and growth should be under palaobiology.

done

• The stuff about the braincase should be moved up to the rest of the description.

done

• You don't need a new section for every each formation fossils are found in, especially since they are so short.

done

• Everything under Biogeography seems like it was taken from the paper, it could be cut to half, way too much detail.

done

• "The holotype of Ampelosaurus" Genera don't have holotypes, only species do.

done

• "he vertebrae have distinctly opisthocoelous centra, lengthening toward the rear; pleurocoels with an angular dorsal border that are well defined; neural spines which are inclined strongly toward the rear; two dorsal vertebrae preserved with a complete, but very crushed neural arch; a neural spine with a very characteristic shape: it is very widened distally, narrows downwards, and enlarges again at the level of the postzygapophyses, conserved better than that of the holotype.on the most posterior dorsal vertebra, a supplementary lamina that starts under the posterior infradiapophyseal lamina and stops at the level of departure of the infrapostzygapophyseal lamina; and an internal structure of the dorsal vertebrae that is spongy with very large cells." Shorten, explain, and simply.

done

• I'm concerned that the text under skeleton are too closely paraphrased from the original papers. Furthermore,these sections are still way too detailed. If you look at featured dinosaur articles, none go into this extreme anatomical detail. Please try and rewrite and shorten accordingly, read other featured and ga dinosaur articles and see how they do it.

done

• This has to be done in the entire article before I can continue. The changes needed are large, not just small fixes. For example in Megalosaurus which you helped with, every technical term is explained, and as much is simplified as possible.

done, at least partly Iainstein (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll ask for a second opinion from non-dinosaur nerds.

some comments

Hi! Just want to say two things.

• Here (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eimmbqaoksrse18/0iXpdtmUoP) I have scanned and uploaded two articles about the excavation of the Ampelosaurus specimen "Eva", I think this might be interesting. Its from "La lettre de dinosauria", a publication of the Musée des Dinosaures in Esperaza that is edited by paleontologist Eric Buffetaut.
• The content about the osteoderms is outdated I think: They most probably do not represent armor. You write that only four osteoderms had been found––indeed, that animal probably did not had much more in life. See this article. I also dislike the life restauration, because it shows Ampelosaurus completely covered with osteoderms, but there is no evidence that it had more than a handful. You also write that the osteoderms are situated "long on its back". Well, that's not in the cited source, and indeed we simply do not know on which body parts this osteoderms had been located. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I have now made that clear.

@FunkMonk: I have fixed all them above comments, is the article GA worthy? Iainstein (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but I have to check the rest of the text! The comments above were only for the first part I read. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• The article still has language and redundancy issues, but I think it's close to GA soon. Did some changes myself[], to speed this up. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• "All the differences, including in the limb proportions, have been linked to" Which differences?

Done

• "a craniolateral development of the preacetabluar blade" Too technical, explain in text.

done

• "Distinguishing characteristics" Make into prose. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

done

• "but uninterrupted after it became unique" What does this mean?

done

• The growth section is hard to follow and contain redundancies, should be simplified.

done

• Same with Histology. Much of it still reads like cut and paste from a research article, and little of it has to do with Ampelosaurus. Needs to be rewritten from scratch so it focuses on Ampelo, and could probably be more than half as short. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

done

• As Dinoguy pointed elsewhere, some of the palaeoecology sections go way too much into detail (most of this should be moved to articles about the formations), you should cut the ones here down, they are especially bloated.

done

• The sections about the new braincase is still too long and detailed. Much of this information is incomprehensible and useless to most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I have finished the above comments. IJReid (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• "the inner ear of A. sp. shows less morphology." What does that mean? How can something have "less morphology"?
• "midbrain of A. sp. is relatively poorly shaped" What does that mean?
• Any news on the referred eggs?
• "Ampelosaurus has not been found to have EFS." Which is what?
• "lacked any fossilized profe of them being present" Proof?
• The Villalba de la Sierra Formation section is still way too detailed. What for example does all the following have to do with this taxon? "Squamate lizards are known only from a few undetermined specimens, and eusuchian crocodiles, which, surprisingly, are only known from one individual related to Allodaposuchus and Musturzabalsuchus, with many specimens, including skulls."
• The article still has many problems with extremely technical language, as well as language that seems taken straight out of research papers, and some redundancies, but it will not hold it back for now (after above issues are fixed), but could be a problem during potential FA. FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm afraid adding "(an external fundamental system)" doesn't help the average reader much to understand. What does it mean?
• I still can't figure out what the above is supposed to mean, and why is it significant that it doesn't have it? The article doesn't explain this. If it can't be properly explained I'm not sure how useful it is here. Luckily, it is the last hurdle before this can be promoted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have explained this in its own sentence now. IJReid (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, an entire section that basically just says "Ampelosaurus doesn't have this feature" seems a bit excessive, but it's alright for GA, the article is generally in much better shape. I'll pass it now. Keep in mind the problems brought up here for future nominations. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nerd of the non-dinosaur/anatomy type

Was looking through the GA page and saw the request for a non-dinosaur person on this review. I've tried to read the article but it uses many technical terms, some with links but many without. It's difficult to follow the article unless you're willing to check a link every 5-10 words. Here are two examples, "Compared with the cylindrical teeth of the two latter genera, Ampelosaurus greatly differs in the fact that its teeth possess a roughly cylindrical crown with thin rostral and caudal expansions at the base" or "The scapula was found to be assiciated [sic] with a coracoid. The length on the bone craniocaudally is 72 centimetres (28 in)" I've underlined the words that, I think, would throw off the layperson reading the article. It reads more like a thesis than a Wikipedia article. Accurate, well-written but difficult to follow for nerds of the non-dinosaur type. Ian Furst (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed many such sentences recently, how is it? Iainstein (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Iainstein I still find it difficult to follow but I'm not sure if that's how dinosaur articles are supposed to read (e.g. technical enough to satisfy dinosaur-type people). I've got lots of medical knowledge, completed and tutored courses in human anatomy but still found paragraphs like the one below tough to follow,

In Bellevue, a right scapula was discovered. The scapula was found to be attached to a coracoid. The longer direction, the bone is 72 centimetres (28 in) long. The blade of the scapula, contrary to titanosaurs, is triangular, larger closer to the base. The blade narrows distally instead of showing an expansion. The angle between the proximal expansion of the scapula and the anterior border of the blade very obtuse, as in the Laño titanosaur. The angle is close to 90º in most titanosaurs. The scapula possesses a light ventral crest behind the glenoid fossa, and is similar to the preserved crest of the Mas d' Azil scapulocoracoid. It is more proximal and much less developed than the posterior ventral scapular crests of the Laño titanosaur and Titanosaurus indicus. Differing from Magyarosaurus and Saltasaurus, the scapula does not have the dorsal crest at the base of the scapular blade. The shape of the coracoid is quadrangular.[1] The coracoid has a thickened cranial margin.[3]

For a general purpose article, is this degree of detail common for the something like the scapula? I'm sure it's an accurate article, but I don't think a layperson would be able to follow it. In the Wikimedicine project, one of the standards we hold is that the information has to be explained in terms that a non-medical person would understand. I'm not following this page but feel free to ping me if you'd like me to look again. Ian Furst (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For comparison, see how featured dinosaur articles are written. Featured related dinosaurs: Diplodocus, Nigersaurus, Massospondylus, Plateosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Furst: I have cut down info, simplified it, and made it more readable. Compare to Nigersaurus. Iainstein (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That change definitely made it more readable for me. This article is very close in style to Nigersaurus, Massospondylus and Plateosaurus imo. Diplodocus, for whatever reason seems more "readable" (is there less detail available on this dinosaur or is there something different with the article?). I still find the skeleton section a little technical but I'm not sure you could change it much more without loss of vital info. Even the neuroanatomy area, while out of my league, is still digestible. Please take all of this with a grain of salt, I'm not a dinosaur person. The amount of work that's gone into this article is fantastic Iain. Wikipedia's lucky to have an editor like you. Ian Furst (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Furst: Thanks, that was a very appreciated comment on the part of my work. As a non-dinosaur nerd, you have helped me extremely in getting this article into the league of wikipedia. Again, thanks. Iainstein (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (PS: Diplodocus is that way because of how well known it is. Since almost every dinosaur book mentions Diplodocus or Brachiosaurus as sauropods, there articles are much harder to get to FA because of how much info you have to get into, and also the amount of simple material that can't be expanded without becoming original research)

• Getting there. Have you fixed the things I listed above this section, Ian (please write "done" or some such under the points when you have)? Then I can go on to the next. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Source

Reid,iain james - In follow up of this request, Ontogenetic stages in the long bone histology of sauropod dinosaurs mentions Ampelosaurus and also cites to the references Eggs, nests, and baby dinosaurs and Dinosaur Eggs and Babies. The citations were not in line and the Ampelosaurus was only mentioned in the Ontogenetic stages article, so it was not clear that the article connected the two. Ontogenetic stages in the long bone histology of sauropod dinosaurs was the only source I found mentioning both Ampelosaurus and egg. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jreferee: Thanks. It would be great to know what it says, but if you can't show me or tell me, I'll have to take your word for it. Would it be possible to have the page and what it says (in "quotes")? Iainstein (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Egg" is only mentioned in the references cited at the bottom of the paper. I did not read the source, so I do not know whether the source supports the idea tht Ampelosaurus has had eggs assigned to it. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jreferee: I'm not sure I get what your saying. I think you mean that the only mention of egg is in the references, and therefore it mentions nothing about ampelosaurus having eggs assigned to it. Is that what you mean, and if not, could you explain it better? Iainstein (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)