Jump to content

Talk:Argentinosaurus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleArgentinosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2020Good article nomineeListed
March 29, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Gravityless image is pure fantasy!

[edit]

I contest the included picture in the article. Is there any solid proof these argentosaruide giants could roam dry lands like biological versions of the AT-AT imperial walker? Common mechanical wisdom suggests a 100+ tons body would collapse the legs under its own weight! The fact that their nose openings were on top of the head indicates they lived in waters and their body was always submerged to support the vast weight with buoyancy. Only the top of their heads were above water ever. 81.0.79.88 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water pressure would have crushed their lungs. Sauropods instead appear to have preferred drier areas, where their large digestive systems would have been an advantage for dealing with low-quality food. J. Spencer 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Plus "common mechanical wisdom" is generally bollocks. -- John.Conway 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, why don't you actually do a little research on sauropod anatomy before you run around all whilly-nilly babbling about ideas known to be false since the 1950s. And as for your statement "is there any solid proof these Argentinosaurus (not "argentinosaruide") giants could roam dry land", my answer is, Lord yes, beyond doubt. In fact, a better question would be is there any solid evidence against terrestrial sauropods? Some sauropod skeletons show fossilized remnants of terrestrial plants in their rib cages, there are sauropod trackways found in areas believed to have been far from water at the time the prints were made, not to mention the fact that water pressure would crush their lungs, and most sauropods could barely raise their necks above their shoulders, making it impossible to assume the vertical position the animal would need in order to breathe underwater. You obviously don't know anything about actual sauropod anatomy, so shut up and take your time machine home to the 1930s, where people might actually endorse your idiotic views on dinosaurs!--24.36.130.109 (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this info to the article instead of just leaving it here. I've made a section for it: Argentinosaurus#Theories_of_aquatic_lifestyle. Gronky (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable statement

[edit]
"(...) after all of its more familiar Laurasian Jurassic kin — like Apatosaurus — had long disappeared"

What is this supposed to mean? Did sauropods go extinct in Laurasia at the start of the Cretaceous? Why Apatosaurus, given that it's not closely related? I think the sentence is misleading at best. -- John.Conway 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Titanosaurs survived in Laurasia into the LK. Maybe something more along the lines of "after the diplodocid sauropods had gone extinct", or simply remove it as irrelevent. Dinoguy2 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic???

[edit]

Arigintinasaurus aquatic??? you have to be kidding! Everyone knows that was imposssible! Either you are someone who was somehow transported through time from the 1930s or you are a creationist. mechanical knowledge says ortherwise. T.Neo 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There is no implication in the article that it might have been aquatic? Circeus 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, he was refering to the anonymous comment on this page above ("gravityless ..."). ArthurWeasley 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was refering to the comment above on that page. The idea that sauropods were aquatic is outdated. "Common mechanical knowledge" actually points otherwise. At that depth the lungs would have collapsed. and the sauropds couldn't lift their necks into a vertical position.T.Neo 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add this info to the article instead of just leaving it here. I've made a section for it: Argentinosaurus#Theories_of_aquatic_lifestyle. Gronky (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we don't know the position of the nostrils on the head in this species because we have never found the head, but modern research shows the actual nostril opening was at the tip of the snout anyway [1]. Additionally, submerging the body in water would be impossible because sauropods were filled with air sacs like birds and, also like birds, would have floated on the top of the water without special adaptations for diving deeper [2]. The only thing worse than hundred-year old argument is debunking them with 50 year old counter-arguments. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add any of this to the article? This isn't one of my areas of interest or expertise, but I got involved because it seems a waste to have such things documented only on the Talk page. Gronky (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on my talk page, such info is not relevant here, old theories like that were suggested for sauropods in general and discredited again long before Argentinosaurus was even found. It only makes sense on the general sauropod article, and it is indeed already there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the most recent edit: "n the first half of the twentieth century, some experts suggested that Argentinosaurus was in fact aquatic." Given that Argentinosaurus was discovered in the 1990s, I hope you can understand why this statement is ridiculous... MMartyniuk (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a topic that has been the feature of hour-long documentaries and numerous scientific papers, the article is very short and vague. Meanwhile, here on the talk page there are editors who seem pretty confident about their knowledge. But the article is left in its poor state. That's what's ridiculous. Gronky (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not ridiculous to add irrelevant material to an article just to make it longer? Seriously? Did you even read the arguments? How can we say a theory was proposed for the lifestyle of this specific animal, when it was deemed inaccurate a century before the animal was even discovered? Over a century ago, pterosaurs were proposed to be flying marsupials. Do you want us to add this "fact" to the, say, Eoazhdarcho page (named in 2005), just to make it longer? FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" has been the feature of hour-long documentaries" So what? Documentaries focus on this animal for one reason only - it's big. That's about all we know about it, and that fact is talked about in the article. The skeleton is extremely incomplete and we don't have interesting things like behavioral traces, nesting sites, pathologies, etc. to write about. Argentinosaurus is simply an animal whose fame exceeds its scientific importance. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact length and weight of Argentinosaurus?

[edit]

Hello, I'm zh:User:Hoseumou from zh.wikipedia. I have some question about the length and weight of Argentinosaurus.

  • The DinoData say Argentinosaurus is 30 metres in length.
  • Thomas R. Holtz's paper say Argentinosaurus is 36.6 (120 ft) metres in length.
  • DinoRuss say Argentinosaurus is 40-45 metres in length, 80-100 tonnes in weight.

And there are many different internet websites showing different datas, such as: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], even the en.wikipedia & es.wikipedia have different data.

I know Argentinosaurus fossils is very fragmentry, but I ask for the exact length and weight of Argentinosaurus. User:hoseumou 15:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we don't know sadly, Argentinosaurus is very fragmentry, the reason the sizes vary is because they are all estimates. It's only known from a few vertebra, some femurs and a tibia. :( Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DinoRuss estimate is the oldest, so that one can be discounted. DinoData is probably going from Ken Carpenter's 2006 paper on giant sauropods. It can be downloaded here. I'm not sure which estimate Holtz used.
It's okay to use a range of estimates, especially since there would have been a range in the real animal. I would write it something like: Argentinosaurus was first estimated at X meters long and weighing Y tonnes.<reference> Later estimates have downsized it to a range of W meters<reference> to V meters<reference> long, with a weight of T tonnes<reference> to U tonnes.<reference>.
This is the best option. It should be made clear that we don't know how big it actually was, because without little details like complete neck and tail, it's impossible to know its relative proportions to other sauropods for comparison. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've another question. The DinoData said maximum width of 1st dorsal vertebra is 129 cm, height is in 159cm; height of 2nd dorsal vertebra is 115cm. This article said one of Argentinosaurus's vertebra had a length of 1.3 meters, what is the length talking about? Dorsoventral, anteroposterior, or left-right? Finally, I still hope that both of you can find out more papers about Argentinosaurus, thank you. User talk:hoseumou 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur sexuality and blind young needs a reference

[edit]

I would say the following section needs a reference or two:

'The Argentinosaurus was the most sexually active dinosaur living on Earth, they would generally lay up too 10000 eggs in a life time. The newborn were born blind and only developed full sight within 2 years. This would allow the dinosaur to fully develop their hearing first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.76.27 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That's actually very amusing. Struck from the article with utter contempt, of course ...

Largest dinosaur ever.

[edit]

I think the sentence stating there were larger species of dinosaurs should be removed. It's a strong statement without merit and sentences like this chip away at wikipedias status as a credible source of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.90.132 (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not the biggest, what is?

[edit]

The intro seems overly vague about its size:

It is among the largest known dinosaurs.

What does that mean? It's in the top 100?

I'm no expert on this topic, but would it not be fair to say "Many experts believe argentinosaurus to be the largest known dinosaur"? (Or should that be "land-based dinosaur"?) Or "After XYZosaur, argentinosaurus is possibly the largest (land-based) dinosaur"? Gronky (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The Biggest is supposedly about 15.0 Male African Elephant Volumes. I think 15.0 is a little too big, maybe between 14.8 and 14.9 Male African Elephant Volumes, but for simplicity, lets use 15.0 and a large Elephant between 5.84 and 5.85 Cubic meters. So the Sauropod would displace between 87.6 Cubic meters of water, and 87.75 Cubic meters of water. These sizes were only possible some time between 167 Ma, and 163 Ma. The closer to our time period you get, the smaller the maximum allowable size of all animals with elapsed time.

The Maximum weight of the largest Sauropod was about 78, 180 LBS. (about 39.09 tons ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.216.62 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

39.7m???

[edit]

Why there are no sources for that estimate? And if you have sources, that information would be useful to me. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is in the article (footnote 6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864407/ Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User Dinoguy2.!--AlfaRocket (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biomechanics and speed

[edit]

Is there any published critique on the inaccuracies of the Museo Carmen Funes mount? the conclusions of the analysis done by Sellers et al (2013) in some form rests on the accuracy of the mount and that is something they acknowledge: "The model relies heavily on the full body skeletal reconstruction and more work needs to be done on other, more complete sauropod specimens to confirm any findings." Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass estimate

[edit]

Sellers et. al give 3 different values for their mass estimate: 83,230.29 kg (Table 5), 83,230 kg (below Table 3), and 83 tonnes (3 times, in the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusion). All values other than the 83,230.29 kg value are rounded off. Next to the 83,230 kg value they state: "However it must be remembered that these values are necessarily estimates", meaning that they understand that the value displays false precision, which is why they use the 2-digit value elsewhere. If they can round the value off appropriately, surely we can too. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When was it discovered?

[edit]

I don't know when the Argentinosaurus was discovered. According to the spanish page, it was discovered in 1989, but here it says 1987 so what is the true one? Turbo-Dino Rex (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1989 is correct following the description paper, so I'd go with that one. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a rough Paleoglot translation of the paper here: [10], and it actually doesn't specify when the specimen was found. The summer of 1989 seems to just be when funded excavation took place. The translation is, unfortunately, very rough. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a few Spanish speakers in the paleo project that could help if needed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checking on the *much superior* spanish article shows a link to the original paper, so anyone with spanish knowledge could probably read in there. From what I understood the specimen was located and excavated some time around/in 1989, which is good enough for our uses here. [11] IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this might make a good future collaboration. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the list of most popular dinosaur articles, it might be the easiest of the top 30 that are not yet GA/FA to get there... The language issue is probably easier to overcome than the current messes Spinosaurus and Pachycephalosaurus are in (and Brontosaurus won't exactly be a piece of cake either). FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argentinosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox Image

[edit]

The skeletal mount in the taxobox has a variety of problems. Here is a list of (at least some of) them:

  1. The skull's morphology feels kind of... weird
  2. Extremely concentrated premaxillary teeth
  3. Maxillary tooth count of zero
  4. Cervical transitions seem... strange. Sections of those vertebrae seem to be cloned.
  5. Droopy cervical ribs
  6. The dorsal spines seem shorter and broader than they should be (perspective?)
  7. Has a ridiculously narrow chest (like, diplodocid narrow)
  8. Anterior part of illiac blades curve inwards
  9. Fourth pedal ungual
  10. Too many caudal verts?

Because of this, I think that we need to replace the image. Perhaps the holotype material display in the background of the image could be extracted for this purpose? Any input? Also, my skeletal's missing a rib. Does anyone know of any resources for it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mount remains the best image we have for Argentinosaurus. The skull, being obscured by view, is a lot less obviously wrong, the tooth counts are fine anyways, it looks like a Nemegtosaurus/Sarmientosaurus-based skull with narrow premaxillae. The vertebrae themselves are fine, we have known related taxa looking way more extreme (Mendozasaurus etc). The chest is wrong, but ironically is better than most sauropod mounts, as the coracoids are close to eachother instead of separated. And its actually about the right width, the Nima-version Futalognkosaurus with a massively wide torso is very wrong. The ilium and pedal claws are wrong, but they're not a very significant part. The wrist articulation is also not very good, but its not noticable either. And caudals, well caudals are known from about 2 titanosaurs with an entire tail, and in Macronaria range from ~30 to ~65. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current image is the best compromise between looking presentable, and not focusing on too many unknown parts, like the earlier taxobox image did. This one[12] may be even better in that regard, though it may look weird to most people. It focuses on parts that are known. Mike Taylor also used it in a presentation once. FunkMonk (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the top down image that Funk posted, although I agree it might confuse people and it still has problems. All mounts of Argentinosaurus are questionable interpretations which favour exaggerating the size like incredibly long tails, torsos and giant feet etc. My prefered solution would be a nice shot of the holotype material in the taxobox, with images of the mounts in the body of the article. Something like this...but free; [13] ( maybe we could try and contact the author and get him to release the image to the commons?) because that material is ultimately what 'Argentinosaurus' actually is. Thankfully Slate Weasel's diagram gives the viewer a decent idea of what's actually known. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we do with it, acquiring such a photo would be great for the article. I've had some success with asking for licence changes on Flickr in the past (got a lot of nice Japanese dino expo photos through it), so should be possible. Not sure what happened to my Flickr account, though... FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the author of that image and he's said it's fine for us to use it and any of the images on this blog post, although he asks for his face to be blurred out if he's in one. [14] There are some shots of neck and tail bones, which he writes in the image captions, belong to Argentinosaurus. The post is from 2010 so I suspect they might be from Patagotitan or something...unless there is undescribed material!? There is also a shot of Giganotosaurus material. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds nice, make sure to get the permissions through otrs![15] FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extracted from current image
Nice way to show what's known. Not sure about putting a heap of bones in the taxobox though, when the skeletal mount photos aren't unambiguously inaccurate... FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for getting the article to FA or similar, seems we just missed its 30th anniversary:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a comment on that story is to be believed, the find was reported in a newspaper in 1989 but it mentioned the remains where found two years previously. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Steveoc 86 now got some free images of the holotype[17][18], but there might be some issue with if the author wants to be anonymous or how? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, no neck bones are described for the holotype, either those neck bones are undescribed or belong to Patagotitan maybe? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it can be identified from the skeletal at the upper left? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On further study, they could be Futalogknosaurus; the skeletal looks similar to the one published in Calvo 2007 Futalognkosaurus paper, the bones seem similar, and the photos are taken at Centro Paleontologico Lago Barreales where the fossils are housed.Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thin you're right, here's a photo[19] of what appears to be the same bones, under the title "The real bones of Futalognkosaurus dukei".[20] FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished Size Estimates etc

[edit]

Would anyone take issue if I removed the Mortimer DML estimates from the article? If the estimates sparked a discussion then I think they might be more notable but as far as I can see it's just one post. If we do keep them I think they'd be better off in an external links/see also section. I also think the inclusion of Hartman's comments on his blog might be questionable. I know that he has a reconstruction that he has yet to publish but the comments are somewhat in passing and preliminary. If he posts the reconstruction on his blog and talks more extensively about it then I think that would be more notable and would be happy to include it. Any thoughts? Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, emails and blogs shouldn't be cited for controversial claims. I cited Hartman's blog in Giganotosaurus, though, and it seemed to be fine during FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the inclusion of that blog post is fine because it's explicitly talking about the mass of Giganotosaurus in detail with diagrams etc. The one in Argentinosaurus article is basically a paragraph? Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Maximum allowable Weight of Sauropod Dinosaurs

[edit]

The Maximum allowable weight of Sauropod Dinosaurs is controlled by the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the soil. In Engineering, a common number used is 2500 Pounds per square foot of surface area under foundations, however, there is a factor of safety of 2 to keep structures from settling as the soil compresses and moves down under load. Dinosaurs do not stand too long in one location, so they do not need the factor of safety applied, and, they can apply, briefly, while walking, up to 5,000 lbs per square foot of surface area under one, usually rear, foot print. All you need to know to find out how much a Sauropod weighed is to know the surface area of one rear footprint in square feet, multiply by 5,000, and you have a good estimate of the animals weight. So, you ask, what was the largest, and heaviest? It turns out they weigh a lot less than most people think. The Largest footprints from the UK (?) have a foot bottom surface area of less than 16 square feet for one rear footprint, so the Heaviest, by footprint, is LESS THAN 16 X 5,000 <= 80,000 pounds, or 40 short tons, (36.364 tonnes). This creates a bit of a problem. How can an animal that displaces a Volume up to 15 Male African Elephant Volumes ( Maximum ) weigh so little ? The answer is in the Elephants. The Elephants are the largest animal that can currently walk the Earth in the current surface Gravity. Sauropods are the largest animals that could walk the Earth in a prior surface gravity. The lower the surface gravity, the larger the allowable Volume of the largest animal. As it turns out the solution is fairly simple. Volume is a Cubic Function, and Area, whether surface area, or bone cross-sectional area, of foot bottom surface area is a squared function. The ratio of surface area divided by Volume is surface gravity. Now the maximum Volume is almost 15.0 Male African Elephant Volumes, while the Weight, and the foot bottom surface area are related to 15.0^(2/3) = 6.082202 Male African Elephant Weights. The ratio is thus 6.082202 / 15.0 = 0.404 480 "g" for the maximum allowable Volume, and Maximum allowable Weight of the largest possible Sauropod. Now Elephants can displace, at maturity, between 5.5 and 6.0 cubic meters. The best number to use is less than 6.0, I use a number between 5.84, and 5.85 cubic meters per "large" Male African Elephant. ( 5.84255 ). A 15.0 Sauropod would displace 15.0 X 5.84255 = 87.63825 cubic meters, and if they were possible in our surface gravity they would weigh in at 87.63825 X 2200 = 192,804 lbs (in 1.0 g). There are a number of problems with this weight. One is that a single rear footprint would need to be 192,804 / 5,000 = 38.56 square foot in surface area. This is more than 2.41 times the surface area of the largest footprint ever found, so this kind of weight is not possible. The 5.84255 cubic meter elephant weighs in at 5.84255 X 2200 lbs/m^3 = 12,853.61 lbs ( use 12,854 ) The Sauropod would thus weigh in at 15.0 X 0.405480 X 12,854 = 78,181 lbs (low g). Its footprint would be a maximum size of 78,181 / 5,000 = 15.6362 square feet of foot bottom surface area, which is less than the estimate maximum of 16 sf. So Pi/4 X d^2 = 15.6362 feet, so d= 4.4619 feet or 53.5429 inches across at the diagonal. This is fairly close to the maximum sized footprint ever found. Another Note: The unit weight of water is about 2200 lbs per cubic meter in 1.0 g, but would be only 892 lbs in the 0.405480 g "Largest" Sauropod Environment. Look at the Videos on Swimming elephants. Their density is about 99.7% of the Density of water. Only the end of the trunk sticks up above water. Dinosaurs had similar densities. Michael W. Clark, Golden, Colorado 98.245.216.62 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping the size section

[edit]

I've been working on revamping the size section at User:Slate_Weasel/sandbox#Size, Jens Lallensack. So far, I've sorted out all our length and mass estimates, and will incorporate them into their own paragraphs eventually. I have also added a little intro paragraph about why so much has been said about this topic and how these estimates are arrived at. I've also trimmed the title to just "Size", as weight is inherently a form of size. How does this look so far? Also, I'm considering adding the Patagotitan cladogram to the classification section and expanding the scope of the cladograms a bit, something akin to what was done with Elasmosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like youre missing the mass estimate of Mazzeta 2004 (73 tonnes). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 03:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! I would remove the first sentence though, it doesn't add much (it would be surprising if the giant size would not have been noticed by the first authors). I tried to add some context to the classification section, some background on Lognkosauria is still missing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article. I'll add info on Lognkosauria as soon as I get the chance. Thanks for the feedback! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Happy that we finally make some more progress. I think we can have it at GA level very soon. Apart from the lead and overall polishing (conversion templates and so on), what else do we need? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a list of stuff below. A while ago, I started working on a Huincul Formation dinosaur size comparison, but I stopped because I got sick. I could continue working on it, though. Also, the above discussions on gravity are... strange... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Things To Do

[edit]
  • I think that the first paragraph of Description, describing the known material, really belongs in Discovery
  • Done.
  • I could perhaps add the life restorations of Saltasaurus and Futalognkosaurus to the size section, since these have both been used as models for Argentinosaurus
I wonder whether that section can carry that many images though? Thinking rather more images that show known anatomy of Argentinosaurus itself, such as this one[21], could be prioritised. And maybe a map of where it was found? By the way I'll for sure review this at either the GAN or FAC stages, and am ready to help with anything in the meantime (which doesn't involve actual writing, as that would make me ineligible as reviewer). FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I also think images of other genera are more confusing to the casual reader than beneficial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add info on the naming of Lognkosauria
  • Done.
  • I'll add the cladogram from Carballido et. al. (2017) alongside the Colossosauria one, and perhaps expand their scope to all of Lithostrotia (as Argentinosaurus was sometimes thought to be a close relative of Opisthocoelicaudia)  Done
Re: phylogeny stuff, I'm in the midst of going through the long, contradictory, and confusing history of titanosaur classifications, so if you need anything I'll be able to provide it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the titanosaur section of the sauropodomorph template could use some revamping to account for newer studies? Here's the expanded Colossosauria cladogram. It's pretty extensive, but I think that it's important to show the new locations of taxa like Opisthocoelicaudia and Epachthosaurus, which were once thought to be close relatives, and to show how it differs from the Patagotitan cladogram (which I'll create soon). I can trim it if it's too big, though. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lithostrotia
Honestly I can go through making changes to the template, but I've been working on the Titanosauria-focused one as well as articles themselves, but not much lines up in titanosaur phylogeny anymore. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that the Uberabatitan osteology found Colossosauria (with Argentinosaurus) to be (gulp) outside of Titanosauria. Should I mention this in the article? I worry that it will make it seem like this is the majority view since it is the chronologically most recent study. I see that I also missed this: [22], although I'm not sure how much new info this gives us on Argentinosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't check closely enough, Uberabatitan paper was from April while Colossosauria was named in July. Anyways, I've expanded the Classification some more. Pinging IJReid and Jens Lallensack to make sure that nothing's been left out of the text. I will add the Patagotitan cladogram, but I'll keep it trimmed to Colossosauria. With all this taxonomic chaos, I'm not brave enough to make it bigger. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Classification section looks alright to me. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct the link to Patagotitan
  • Done
  • Search for more on Paleobiology (i.e. food requirements)
  • Add info on sphenodonts to Paleoecology, and perhaps replace the current image (pronated hands)
Some more expansion done.
Maybe some more informal sources can be found? Here for example is an article in Spanish about the 30th anniversary of its discovery, seems to have some circumstantial info and photos of the excavation:[23] I found it on the DML, maybe there is more on Google Scholar or elsewhere. I found a lot of contemporary science reporting for Giganotosaurus, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this helps already. Still confused though as sources seem to be contradictory, as Bonaparte in 1996 states that the first excavation was already in 1980 … maybe just a typo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1994 book "Hunting Dinosaurs" has a chapter where the writer visits Bonaparte and documents what appears to be very haphazard handling of the (I assume) Argentinosaurus fossils before it was named. The chapter is pretty critical of Bonaparte, so I don't know if it is appropriate to use here. But the gist seems to be that the fossils were not handled very well, and even damaged due to incompetence. Oh, and while looking at the book right now, the whole book fell out of the spine, great... FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you send me the pages in question? As for the damaging, well it gets very difficult with fossils of this size that are encased in extremely hard rock, so I would not necessarily buy that this was because of incompetence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll send them on email, but beware that it doesn't identify the dinosaur other than as "an unnamed sauropod, the largest ever found from the Cretaceous". As for the damage, well, you'll see for yourself, it is a pretty strange book... FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the skeletal diagram (which is highly valuable) needs some updates. (1) Wording such as "inadequately figured" is judgemental. Imo the published figures of these elements are fully adequate. Does it mean that they are not figured in lateral view? I would remove this whole category, and just coloring them all white, and discuss the problem in the file description. (2) The diagram shows six dorsal verts, but the text states that there are seven (this seventh vert was only mentioned in the Salgado 2010 paper though). (3) There is at least one rib, which is not shown. (4) The holotype is "MCF-PVPH 1". (5) The numbers on the scale bar are too small to be readable on my screen even if I open it on commons, and too close to the bar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do over the next week or so. To answer the remarks: (1) Yes, adequate means lateral here, as that's the view that's needed. I can still change it, though. (2) I've been wondering how to implement this for a while. By the way, did you notice that Carpenter's skeletal has nine dorsals in it? (3) Another element that I was unsure of how to implement. I guess I could take it from Patagotitan? (4) That should be easy to fix (5) I'm probably going to change the scale bar's style a bit. I may also remove the black bar representing the ground, as it merges with the sauropod's autopods in an odd way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look (sorry for the delay)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. But where is this pubis coming from, we do not mention it in the text (should we?). I'm not sure about the orange bottom bar, I found it quite distracting. Maybe leave it at grey as in the previous version, or remove altogether. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the pubis coming from? ...excellent question! Most skeletals online show the pubis as known, including Carpenter's diagram, but now that you mention it, I can't find any reference to it in the literature at all. Not sure what to do about that. I've made the ground light gray. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more tasks:
    • Copyediting stuff
Yeah, wanted to do this for some time now along with some small additions, hope that I find the time soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since we expanded/wrote the sections in a pretty much random order, one thing that we've got to double check is where things are linked. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change mentions of tibia in "limbs" to "fibula," as this is what the more recent study stated (it's not been countered as far as I know). This will require some rewriting, which I can do on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, are there independent studies that follow this? I only know about the reference made in Salgado & Bonaparte (2007), who give both interpretations without judgement. If there is no consensus, we should do the same. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted it to a more neutral view. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me once you have it in the Image review, otherwise I might miss it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also think this might give people the impression that we know much more about the proportions of many of these genera than we actually do. I personally could do without silhouettes in cladograms at least as long as they remain at such a low taxonomic level. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improving the lead

@Slate Weasel: I am through with my edits now (I apologise for removing some stuff, we can add back if you disagree with something). Is there anything we are still missing? If not, please go ahead with nominating at GAN if you want! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I'm also done with most of my stuff, although I'll take a look through it tomorrow and do some copyedits of my own. I do wonder if we could somehow make use of this image that I cropped from the PLoS mount photo: File:Argentinosaurus Holotype PLoS ONE.png. It is pretty fuzzy, though. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could also just note it's there in the caption of the taxobox image? That's what I did at Spinophorosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack I think that we're ready for GAN, although I'm not too sure about the caption in the taxobox. I tried to make it sound coherent and informative, but I don't think that it worked. Any reccomendations for how to improve it? I see that we're just in time for New Year's! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the caption a bit, what do you think? All good then – as said, fell free to list it at GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a Flickr image[24] of the Fernbank mount which has a better focus on the known elements. I wonder, if cropped, it would be more representative than one of the two skeletal mount pictures used now? FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks good. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At last... a peer-reviwed paper listing Patagotitan as smaller than Argentinosaurus! I'll update the size section as soon as I get the time. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Argentinosaurus

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Argentinosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Carballido2017":

  • From Titanosauria: Carballido, J.L.; Pol, D.; Otero, A.; Cerda, I.A.; Salgado, L.; Garrido, A.C.; Ramezani, J.; Cúneo, N.R.; Krause, J.M. (2017). "A new giant titanosaur sheds light on body mass evolution among sauropod dinosaurs". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 284 (1860): 20171219. doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1219. PMC 5563814. PMID 28794222.
  • From Bonitasaura: Carballido et al., 2017
  • From Notocolossus: Carballido, José L.; et al. (2017). "A new giant titanosaur sheds light on body mass evolution among sauropod dinosaurs". Proc. R. Soc. B. 284 (1860): 20171219. doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1219. PMC 5563814. PMID 28794222.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Argentinosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • I think the lead has some unnecessary details:
    • "It is considered a member of Titanosauria, the dominant group of Cretaceous sauropods, and Lognkosauria, a subgroup of Titanosauria that contained other giant genera such as Patagotitan and Futalognkosaurus" I don't think Lognkosauria is important enough to mention in the lead, and the former detail could be fit into the first sentence as " is a genus of giant titanosaur sauropod dinosaur"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think that the part about Titanosauria is relevant enough (similar things have been done in other relatively recent GAs/FAs), but I did remove the mention of Lognkosauria, because many studies ([25][26][27]) have not recovered Argentinosaurus as a lognkosaur. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first bone was discovered by [...] parts of a sacrum" I think for the lead, all you need is the date of discovery/naming (maybe who named it), where its bones have been found, and what elements are known of the genus (not just specifically the type specimen, unless that's the only specimen)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A computer model of the reconstructed skeleton was set into movement, with algorithms calculating movement sequences that minimise energy requirements" we don't need this in the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this doesn't reflect my understanding of WP:lead. The lead should summarise all aspects of the article (and this has to include the palaeobiology section, for example). It should be more than just the basic facts. Do you think that the lead is too long? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's long, it's that you've put in some unnecessary facts. You can replace them with something else (like, you don't incorporate much from Paleoecology), but definitely, an explanation of study methods is not something that generally goes in the lead. You can just leave it at "It was estimated to have moved with a maximum speed of 7 km/h (5 mph) while employing a gait that was close to a pace"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This particular study is more about the methodology. It is important to mention how this study reached these conclusions, also because these results are far from definite (the authors didn't do the step to conclude that Argentinosaurus employed a pace gait, they only state that this is what the algorithm suggests, which needs improvements to yield realistic results). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you can just say "It was estimated to have moved with a maximum speed of 7 km/h (5 mph)" and leave the explanations and other details in the body of the article, and you could say "possibly employed a pace gait" or use some other word to indicate uncertainty   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was just the model which moved (under certain constraints) at this speed and employed that gait. That does not mean that this applied to the genus, it cannot be easily generalised. It could have moved this way, that does not mean that it did. If we do generalise it, we would over-interpret the source. But in any case, if there is no clear disadvantage connected with keeping the method sentence (is there?), it can be left at the discretion of the authors anyways, can't it? Can we leave it at that? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that's probably true, though I wonder if we really should drop m/s completely (this is needed to compare with other science sources). Replaced now in the lead, but just provided all three in the body, how does that look? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that looks good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the giant predator Mapusaurus" that's not very helpful, maybe "giant carnivorous carcharodontosaur Mapusaurus"
You mean that the term "predator" may not be familiar to readers? Replaced with "carnivore" now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean saying giant dinosaur isn't a very good descriptor, so put the family it's in. You can also say "giant predatory carcharodontosaur Mapusaurus"
Not sure we need it that precise in the lead though? You didn't want us to have Lognkosauria mentioned (the group to which the subject of the article belongs, per current consensus), so why do we need the precise clade of Mapusaurus, which is just a side note? This is just one more (very) technical term that is unnecessary to have in the lead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about mentioning it as a theropod in some capacity, so readers understand it is a large bipedal reptile? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're just glossing the term. It'd be like saying "the herbivorous Magnirostris" which isn't as helpful as saying "the ceratopsian Magnirostris"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "theropod", I can live with that. I would just like to avoid the prose and readability issues that come with four connected adjectives (giant carnivorous theropod Mapusaurus); that will not work imo, we have to keep it simple. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, "chest region" is not ideal either (would exclude "lumbar vertebrae" which do not exist in dinosaurs). But now used "chest region" in a gloss, a precise and concise translation of "dorsal vertebra" does not exist. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I'm more into mammal anatomy so what do I know? I wasn't actually aware dinosaurs don't have lumbar vertebrae, so I suppose "back" is also applicable here if it spans more or less the entire torso. Or you can also say "(spanning the length of the torso)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All right, if "back" does not commonly include the sacrum, I would just change it to "back" again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult. There is the holotype and two femora, which may or may not belong to the holotype individual. Their status as separate specimens is not clearly stated in the sources, so this is all we can do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then in the lead you can say "there are 1 or 2 specimens known, which include [bones]" or something like that, or you can just forget about specimen count and just list what parts of the dinosaur are known   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks strange to me now. Why not just call it paleobiology instead of the hyper specific title it has now, to comply with all other articles? Then it will also be easy to add further paleobiological information to the section as it gets published. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
British English I think, changed captions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the appropriate template to the talk page for clarity. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have a problem doing this, this doesn't seem to be very standard for paleontology articles. Is there a particular reason why (such as our frequent usage of measurements >100cm)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an American, 36 inches is less meaningful than 3 ft. People don't generally convert inches to feet in their head   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We just don't know, as this number is not fixed in sauropods; they are always happy to incorporate dorsals into the neck. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Titanosaurs though typically have 10 dorsals, so this could be noted somewhere. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opisthocoelicaudia had 11 according to Borsuk-Bialynicka. But even if we could state a general count for titanosaurs, I'm still not sure if it will add so much. This has never been specifically stated for this particular genus … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a question because Bonaparte and Coria got up to 11 so I assumed they'd have an estimated total count to get this far out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this is clearer now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "In their initial description of Argentinosaurus in 1993," --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "sister taxon of the more derived Epachthosaurus" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sallam et. al. didn't recover Argentinosaurus as a lognkosaur. Should I make this more clear? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've split it into a "methods" paragraph & a "results" paragraph. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can think about it, but I feel this gives some useful background. Background information like this is certainly allowed and required where it makes sense. Would keep it for as I don't see any valid reason to do otherwise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it's not really background for anything if no one ever used those methods on Argentinosaurus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background does not necessarily need to be directly related to the topic, it should just give the reader a better general idea of the context. But this particular sentence might indeed be a bit out of context; removed it for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should wikilink that then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Improved on this now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is important information (palaeontology is traditionally considered a discipline of geology for reasons), and standard content in dinosaur articles. On the contrary, we are on the short end with this section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the passage "Argentinosaurus was discovered in the...in Patagonia" can be reduced to "Argentinosaurus is known from the Río Limay Subgroup of the Neuquén Group of the Huincul Formation in the Neuquén Basin of Patagonia." A history of the subdividing of the formation itself is not inherently relevant unless it means that the dating of Argentinosaurus changed or the types of animals it's associated with is different or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The history needs to stay in because Argentinosaurus was originally reported from the now deprecated unit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to infer anything, it is important background information. Have a look at our dinosaur FAs, they commonly include information of this kind. We are following established standards.
I've added ever named and valid one, except Tralkasaurus, which I missed due to it not being described at the time. I should probably add that in now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Towards FA

[edit]

@Slate Weasel: I think we are soon in striking distance for FAC! Are you ready? Lets have a list what we may need:

  • We somehow need to include the claim by Paul (2019) that Argentinosaurus was substantially larger than other titanosaurs.
  • I wonder if the topotype femur should/could somehow included into the skeletal diagram? Right now, the ends of the femur are shown as "unknown", which is maybe not ideal.
I've added in the femur, but I can't track down its specimen number. Anyone know what it is? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I the recent FAC of Megarachne, a FA coordinator asked for having the taxon navigation template (in our case the "Sauropodomorpha" template) collapsed by default. Do you know how to do this?
Done by Slate Weasel. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to include the Flickr picture suggested by FunkMonk.
To make a bit more room for images, maybe IJReid can fix the cladograms so they don't get pushed down by the images above, like he fixed it on Elasmosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the width of the cladogram columns, hopefully that is enough. The image isn't conflicting with them for me, but thats probably because of screen dimension differences. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks! I never figure out how to do these things on my own... FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something more on the environment/habitat would be nice.
  • Probably should include the stages (Cenomanian–Turonian) into the lead?
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a source for the 95.5–93.9 Ma indicated in the taxonbox?
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is this source, it would be nice to have in palaeoecology? I also found a 2004 study that reassigned the Huincul Formation to Turonian-Santonian: ([28]). Things are getting complex (although not as complex as Puertasaurus, at least!). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I simply used the source you already included in the palaeoecology, as I couldn't find something better. If that other source proposes a Turonian-Santonian age, we should probably add a sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking about asking you about this as well! The new Paul paper has been pretty exciting, and I think that the size section could warrant a whole new paragraph about Argentinosaurus compared to other titanosaurs (and other sauropods). Yeah, it's very vulnerable to vandalism, but even the published literature seems to be eager to contest/support Argentinosaurus as the biggest. On a mostly unrelated note, apparently the gigantic "Mamenchisaurus" is actually only known from 2 cervicals, not a nearly complete skeleton as previously though :( . Ah well, I was suspecting something like this for awhile. Anyways, collapsing the template is pretty easy to do, {{Sauropodomorpha|state=collapsed}} should get the job done. I'll look for more info on the appendicular elements, and see what I can find on Argentinosaurus/Mapusaurus interactions. I could also work on a Lognkosauria size chart (probably showing Mendozasaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Argentinosaurus, Patagotitan, and Puertasaurus, as these are generally recovered as close relatives) for the classification section. I also could do a diagram of the different interpretations of the order of the dorsal vertebrae, seeing as that's been pretty contentious and is somewhat difficult to follow with text only (something like in Paul's paper). I'll see what I can do over the next week or so, I may be very free or incredibly busy over the next few days. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! True that the paragraph on the vertebra positions was hard to follow; I rewrote that now and hope it is better. Sure, a redo of the Argentinosaurus vs. other titanosaurs sounds good. Regarding the new paragraph "who was biggest", we have to try do not make it too centered on Paul. Maybe listing the different opinions chronologically would be best. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could maybe also be sent for copy edit; not saying it is badly written, but it is often a good idea to get the text shaken up a bit (I always do it, and it is usually an improvement). FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably necessary, yes. Requested a copy edit now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Holtz 2012 is the online appendix for his 2007 book. The most recent update is from 2015, although it is no longer accessible on the web: [29] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a reference to Hotlz's appendix for his book, I think it's a really reliable source, I've added sizes from his list many times, I just thought that it wouldn't be so good having sizes in the Argentinosaurus page both from his book and his genus list. What do you think? Paleo17 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way with keeping it or removing it, what do you think, Jens Lallensack? (Thank you, Lythronax, for clarifying the difference between the two) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure either, but we should not include every update of the genus list, especially when one of these online sheets are not available anymore. Maybe throw the genus list out, and just keep the book? Decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images are placed somewhat illogically, but I have a possible solution for that. I think this image[30] of the 3D model is kind of redundant when we have the video, especially since it doesn't even seem to be correct or complete; the more delicate elements seem to be very fuzzy or absent in the scan, including the neural spines of the back, the sacrum, and the cervical ribs. If the femur image is moved to the right under the limb section, where it makes more sense than the vertebrae section where it is now, the Fernbank mount could be moved out of its way down to where the 3D model was, as it probably conveys better information than it. Then the Matt Wedel image could be moved under the vertebrae section as well, and the life restoration could be moved out of discovery (where it seems misplaced), where it could face the text if the size diagram is left aligned. I can give it a try if this is hard to understand from the text. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a shot, and tweaked some captions, any thoughts? I also wondered whether I should give it a pre-FAC peer-review, but it depends on how ready you feel the text is. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, thanks! Hope Slate Weasel thinks the same. A pre-FAC peer-review would be great, makes it less stressful to fix stuff. I think it will be accepted at FAC if you just give your vote and cite the review? Before you start, let me read and copy-edit once again … I will ping you when done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I usually just specify that I've had my say during peer review when I only give a support at FAC, has been no problem before. As long as the peer review has been as thorough as a FAC review. And yeah, then there is no time limit, which is nice. We almost should have an internal dinosaur project peer review department as they do at the military history project... If there isn't already a forgotten site set up for it somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new image placement looks good, although perhaps the new photo should be placed in the taxobox instead, seeing as it shows the dorsal vertebrae and sacrum more clearly? Sorry that I haven't been very active lately... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could be an option, though I do think it's cool that the current taxobox image shows both the reconstruction and the real bones. Also, the current infobox image does a good job of obscuring the profile of the reconstructed skull, which is probably incorrect... But I think you could use the new image also, it does show most of the known bones, except the lower leg, unfortunately. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: sorry for the delay. If you could do a review, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC peer review

[edit]
  • Museo Carmen Funes is linked three times. Mapusaurus is double linked.
Removed one of the duplinks, although I left the one under "MCF" in the specimen numbers. I suppose I could change that to something like "MCF (Museo Carmen Funes)" if that's a better solution. Mapusaurus duplinking fixed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " is currently catalogued under" Why currently? It is pretty rare that numbers change?
Removed "currently" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a comparatively short cnemial crest, a prominent extension at the upper front that anchored muscles for stretching the leg" I wonder why this detail is under discovery? And shouldn't there be description of this bone under the limbs section?
Transplanted information from discovery to limbs, unfortunately there isn't a great deal of information regarding the fibula that's been published. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, Mazzetta and colleagues" Full name and nationality, as with other people mentioned?
Added with my 100th edit to this article! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In their 2004 study, Gerardo Mazzetta" Occupation, nationality?
Condensed to "In their 2004 study, Mazzetta" for consistency (occupation & nationality mentioned above) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience, FAC reviewers have a hard time understanding "referred" in this context, perhaps say assigned?
Added assigned in parantheses. This is a pretty important palaeontological term, so I personally am reluctant to remove it, although I can if necessary. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to just use "assigned" and remove "referred" completely. The goal is to put the stuff in language that is understood by the general public, and we do not loose any precision in this case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argentinosaurus femur, Museo de La Plata." Perhaps say "assigned femur" instead of genus name, which should go without saying?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A video showing Argentinosaurus walking as estimated by computer simulations" Maybe the caption could link it more clearly with the study described in the text bu giving a date, "from a 2013 study" r similar?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argentinosaurus in red" Perhaps add "second from the right"?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonaparte & Coria don't need to be linked twice in the infobox.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paul estimated a greater length of 35 metres (115 ft) or greater in 2019" Didn't he give reasons in that publication?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2019, Paul gave a mass estimate of 65–75 tonnes (72–83 short tons)." Likewise.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, Carballido and colleagues considered Argentinosaurus to be smaller than Patagotitan,[8] although Paul found Patagotitan to be smaller than Argentinosaurus in 2019." Reasoning?
Added. The Carballido (2017) reasoning is honestly kind of strange, hopefully I've explained it correctly and reasonably clearly. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other sauropods including Maraapunisaurus" But wasn't that (A. fragillimus) considerably downscaled last year when reclassified as a rebbachisaurid? It is a bit misleading now that you use the new name but an older estimate, when the new name comes with the caveat that it would be much smaller.
Quoting Paul (2019): "More importantly for estimating mass, dorsal–sacral series/posterior dorsal vertebral height ratios are about 3 to 3.5, indicating that the dorsal–sacral series was 7.7 to nearly 9 m long in Maraapunisaurus, much longer than those of the largest titanosaurs. Although di-plodocoids have narrower abdomens and pelves than do titanosaurs, when envisioned as a robust diplodocoid (Car-penter 2018), the overall dimensions of Maraapunisaurus place this sauropod in the area of 80–120 tonnes in mass and 35 to 40 m in length (Fig. 5A)." --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you don't seem to quote Paul after that paragraph, though. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation for Paul (2019) is placed at the end of the fourth size paragraph since most of the stuff in there relies on that paper. Should I put it at the end of the relevant sentences as well? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because currently the Paul source is only for the last sentence. Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem so, since it is spelled that way under Palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dorsal vertebra cast in side view" Probably good to add in "left" side view, since most readers may not know what way it is supposed to be oriented.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mentioned another vertebrae" Should be vertebra, if singular.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more physical description of the femora other than dimensions?
I'ved searched for one but never found it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were not mentioned in the original description, only later assigned to the genus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fernando Novas noted" You should only spell out full names at first mention, and sue last names after, perhaps there are other instances of this.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extended sidewards and downwards, forming a much-broadened surface that connects with" You go form past to present tense.
 Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because it was defined on plesiomorphic (primitive) features only" Explain why this makes it invalid?
 Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be paraphyletic" Explain?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included more derived members" Explain derived.
I tried with "evolved", not ideal but nothing better comes to mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Advanced"? That's at least what was used before derived became the norm... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "classified outside this group" Of is unnecessary.
 Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a basal" Link and explain.
 Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a member of Lognkosauria and the sister taxon Patagotitan" Sister taxon of? And link sister taxon.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worth noting that titanosaur interrelationships are pretty unstable, if any of the cited studies do this?
 Done, added a sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " due to its many small offspring" Since this starts off by being about large sauropods in general, perhaps this should be "their many small offspring"? Also because the offspring of Argentinosaurus itself aren't known.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "oxygen and carbon dioxide" Links?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a hatched Argentinosaurus would have been no longer than 1 metre (3.3 ft) and not heavier than 5 kilograms (11 lb)" You link Wedel and Hallett below this, but wouldn't it be best to mention them earlier, since that part is also their ideas?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Date should also be moved up, now it reads like the following statement is from a different publication. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their predators, theropod dinosaurs" Link theropod here and remove the link from ecology.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argentinosaurus might have been preyed on by Mapusaurus and Giganotosaurus" But isn't Giganotosaurus from a different formation?
Yes, though possibly contemporaneous … Do you recommend we remove such vague ideas and stick with those that have been published in peer-reviewed papers? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe work around it by saying charcharodontosaurs instead of specific genera? I remember Luis Rey changing a painting of Giga and Argentino together because it was supposedly anachronistic... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also noted that I completely misread the part on cooperative hunting, fixed now. I removed Giganotosaurus completely, as the book mentions it as a predator of Argentinosaurus on a different page only (where Mapusaurus is not mentioned). So maybe just another error of the book. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been suggested by palaeontologist Christophe Hendrickx that we should change the title of Palaeoecology sections to Palaeoenvironment, which I have at least done some places. Perhaps worth considering.
 Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many mounted Argentinosaurus skeletons around the world, if sources can be found, perhaps it's worth noting something about them and how they were created, and what they were based on under discovery?
Finding sources here is usually pretty difficult, but I will have a look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muscles and their properties based on comparisons with living animals" Were based on?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that it could be improved in there are many areas." Something wrong with the sentence.
Was the suggestion by the copy editor. Changed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and confirmed findings need to be based on more complete sauropod specimens." What is meant by a confirmed finding?
Copy editor suggestion. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For FAC, be consistent in whether article titles are capitalised or not.
I've done this for all the papers. Not sure what to do for the books, capitalization-wise. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Book titles are usually in title case (large front letters, except of, with, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, also added a link to BHL for Powell's book. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the dominant group of sauropods during the Cretaceous."
What needs to be changed here? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought I had removed that point. But since it's here, I think maybe the article body should state this explicitly somewhere too? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argentinosaurus is widely considered one of the largest-known land animals of all time" Perhaps it is worth noting it has at times been considered the largest land animal?
Changed to "one of the largest-known land animals of all time, if not the largest,". Sorry for the hiatus, things got super busy in real life. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was laid down" Sounds a bit odd, say deposited?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • State how many million years ago it lived?
 Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since José Bonaparte just died yesterday, it is a nice occasion to get this to FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have everything now. Thanks @FunkMonk: for the great review, and @Slate Weasel: for fixing most issues when I had no time! Will nominate at FAC now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finishing the final issues when I didn't have the time! I have no clue what my schedule's gonna look like over the next week, so hopefully I'll be able to get some decent edits done during FAC. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By chance, I was just reading an old Danish science magazine from 2006, which has an article about dinosaur growth, and it states (without citation) that "American scientists have calculated that Argentinosaurus grew with up to 55 kg a day to reach a weight of a 100 tonnes". This seems very specific, and not that it's hugely important, but I wonder if this is from some overlooked paper or abstract? FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, and that would be a great thing to add indeed, but I don't know a source! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

[edit]

Link paleontologist. 50.201.78.236 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they mean link the word paleontlogist? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I linked "palaeontologist" in the lead, perhaps that's what IP is referring to, didn't really specify in what section though. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also linked the first instance of it in the article body as well (which was previous unlinked). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argentinosaurus&oldid=1216967312"