Talk:Argentinosaurus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Dunkleosteus77

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 ([1][2][3]) 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]

I don't think it's very helpful to put speed in meters per second, you should go kph User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:20, 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]

"included seven dorsal vertebrae (of the back region)" I mean, other types of vertebrae are in the back. Maybe "of the chest region"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:20, 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]

gloss sacrum User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there only 2 specimens? That could stand to go in the lead User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:20, 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]

Thanks for reviewing! Comments are addressed so far, lets see what Slate Weasel (talk · contribs) has to add. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why Paleobiology has a subsection User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 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]

Exactly what variation of English are you using, because I see metres and paleobiology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:53, 1 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]

When converting to imperial units, when you get over 12 inches, convert to feet User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:53, 1 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]

Exactly how many dorsal vertebrae is Argentinosaurus estimated to have had? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:53, 1 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]

"and had additional articular surfaces below" don't really understand. Below what? What exactly do hyposphene-hypantrum articulations look like? Are they like cylindrical projections from the centrum? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is clearer now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In their 1993 first description of Argentinosaurus" that doesn't seem right User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 2 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]

" Bonaparte and Coria noted that it differed from typical titanosaurids in the presence of hyposphene-hypantrum articulations" might wanna reiterate here that those articulations are contentious User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"They considered it to be either a basal titanosaur or the sister taxon of Epachthosaurus" you should also say if Epachthosaurus was basal or derived User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 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]

"Julian Silva Junior and colleagues found Argentinosaurus to belong to Lognkosauria once again" when you say "once again" it sounds like someone said it wasn't a lognkosaurian User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 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 feel like Speed and gait could be partitioned into paragraphs User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 2 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]

The passage "Before computer simulations...and the elliptical femoral shaft" I don't think this belongs in Argentinosaurus unless you cite a study which specifically applies these methods to approximate Argentinosaurus speed and gait. You should probably move it to Titanosauria User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 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]

Are titanosaurs typically reconstructed with a upright neck or a horizontal neck or is neck position homoplastic? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contentious issue even for sauropods as a whole. Since we know so little about this genus (and nothing from the neck), we can't speculate here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the digital Argentinosaurus learned to walk" bit too poetic. Maybe, "The gait was calculated/simulated/whatever using..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was machine learning that found the gait. The word "learn" seems appropriate to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 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]

"where the fore- and hindlimb of the same side of the body" I read this as front-side and back-side like a gallop and got confused User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of an unequivocal wording now, maybe something comes to mind tomorrow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that video was a gif User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbis is the standard video and audio format of Wikipedia, so all good. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Much larger terrestrial vertebrates might be possible, but would require significant body remodelling and possibly behavioural change to prevent joint collapse" I don't understand User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to list all the sources of error rather than pitching a grant request in those last couple of sentences in Palaeobiology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The passage "Argentinosaurus was discovered in the Argentine Province of...which are tuffaceous" this is a lot of information not really well-related to Argentinosaurus which could be incorporated in some other article. For this, I think you can just say something like "Argentinosaurus is known from the Río Limay Subgroup of the Huincul Formation in the province of Neuquén, Argentina." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 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]

"Vertebrates are most common in the lower region of the formation" what exactly can we infer from this? Is it entirely important to this article? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 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.

In Palaeoecology you use "such as" which implies there're more. Just checking, are there more or did you list all of them? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]