Talk:Gallimimus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Will review once the copy edit is done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, when I saw a review had begun, I was about to say that a copy edit is ongoing, but seems you already took it into account... I long thought we needed an FA about a more "standard" ornithomimosaur than Deinocheirus, and what would be better than one which is already famous because of a certain movie, and has fewer taxonomic complications than most other well-known ones... FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I start with the lead, more tomorrow! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Gallimimus was the largest known ornithomimid; adult height was about 6 metres (20 ft) long, 1.90 metres (6.2 ft) tall at the hip, and weighing about 440 kilograms (970 lb). – 6 m in height and 1.9 m tall at the hip? Also it seems to be grammatically insound, the part starting with "1.90 metres" doesn't fit to the beginning of the sentence.

Hehe, whoops, happened when I rejigged a large part of the copy edited text. Rewrote. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• it was broader and more rounded at the tip than other species. – than in other species?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Gallimimus is not always in italics (also in the references).

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• The vertebrae had hollow depressions which made them pneumatic (air filled) – Depressions do not necessarily mean that something is pneumatic. As pneumaticity does not appear to be something very characteristic for ornithomimosaurs, do you need to mention it in the lead at all?

It is a feature underlined both in the original description and in this[1] 2015 paper. So I don't know, most people reading may not know about it? Gallimimus and Deinocheirus are the most "pneumatised" ornithomimosaurs according to the 2015 paper, so at least it is a distinction. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, point.

• The vertebrae had hollow depressions which made them pneumatic (air filled), and the neck was long. – It does not read very well to have two bits of information that have nothing to do with each other connected by an "and".

Split, as it was originally. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Like its relative Ornithomimus, it would have had feathers, with adults having wing-like structures on the forelimbs. – Without further info, the reader will not know why you are mentioning Ornithomimus here but not for the other general features you mention.

Added "as evidenced by", is this better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Roman youth – link Roman

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• ornithomimosaur should be linked at first mention.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• It has also been suggested that it used small columnar structures in its beak for filter feeding in water, although it has also been suggested – two times "it has also been suggested" does not read well.

Reworded, though it may still be an awkward sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Several ornithomimid fossils in various stages of growth were discovered by – It is a bit vague, and it does not become clear if those were later referred to Gallimimus or not. I would write something like "Gallimimus was described based on …" or something similar.

The source itself is actually vague on this, implying that not all of the specimens were Gallimimus: "The bulk of this material is represented by one species described here as Gallimimus bullatus n. gen., n. sp. However, some skeletal fragments, e. g. claws, metatarsals, vertebrae, most probably belonging to other representatives of the Ornithornirnidae, were also found." What this refers to, I don't know, and it may (or may not) have since been referred to Gallimimus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

When you just refer to the Gallimimus specimens, that would not be an issue? But the decision is on you, it is a very minor point.

I now said "several fossils" instead, because I kind of like that such sentences are kept chronologically, so that we hear about the disovery of the fossils first, and then the name last, which I also did in the Dilophosaurus intro, for example. Note also that, as an experiment, the description is first in the intro, whereas it is usually after discovery for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Answered above. By the way, this[2] is most of the text that was cut out which I later reinserted, what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I would keep the long version. In my opinion the copy editor would have had a point if this were a more general article where it is important to weigh sources, but at this low level (genus articles), we simply include everything available, and naturally some sources require a more wordy discussion than others.

Description Note: I will consequently criticize everything I don't like, please don't take individual points too seriously.

All good, there is absolutely no rush! FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Gallimimus was the largest known member of the family Ornithomimidae; the adult holotype specimen was about 6 metres (20 ft) long, 1.90 metres (6.2 ft) tall at the hip, its skull was 330 millimetres (1.08 ft) long, the femur (thigh bone) was 660 millimetres (2.17 ft) long, and it weighed about 440 kilograms (970 lb). – I feel that the part starting with "its skull" does not fit well with the first part of the sentence, and it does not seem necessary to repeat "was … long" all the time. What about this: "Gallimimus was the largest known member of the family Ornithomimidae. The adult holotype specimen was about 6 metres (20 ft) long and 1.90 metres (6.2 ft) tall at the hip; its skull was 330 millimetres (1.08 ft) and the femur (thigh bone) 660 millimetres (2.17 ft) long. It would have weighed about 440 kilograms (970 lb).

I took most of your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• In comparison, a juvenile specimen would have been about 2.15 metres (7.1 ft) long – I see a slight issue here: This sounds as if juveniles would always be this size. I would make clear that you are speaking of a specific specimen.

Also a thing that happened during copy edit, said "one juvenile specimen" instead, better? FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• that the adults bore wing-like structures on their arms as evidenced by the presence of quill-knobs on the lower arm – again a slight issue; why are you first writing "arm" and in the second part "lower arm"? It seems to imply that the wing extended along the full length of the arm but that there is only evidence for the lower arm. I would suggest writing "wing-like structures on their lower arms" and then "quill-knobs on their ulnae".

Removed the first "on their arms". It kind of goes without saying, and the arm is mentioned later anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• The neural arches and centra were separated by sutures, except for barely visible ones within the cervical (neck) vertebrae and caudal vertebrae. – Not sure if this is really relevant. If you describe a specific fossil in detail, you mention it of course. But this is generally true for all dinosaurs, and depends more on the ontogenetic stage than anything else. Neural arches are separate in juveniles and fused in adults; the suture becomes more and more obliterated as the animal gets older. The problem I now see is that a reader might think that this feature has phylogenetical meaning (Has it? I did not check the paper).

Removed, don't think it was so significant after all. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• pleurocoels or foramina (hollow depressions) – only pleurocoels are depressions, pneumatic foramina are holes leading to internal chambers.

The 2015 paper seemingly uses the terms synonymously, which is why I wrote both: "Numerous cervical vertebrae exhibit discrete, ovoid, deeply impressed pneumatic foramina, corresponding to the “small, oval pleurocoels” of Osmólska and colleagues".[3] What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. I got completely confused, because because depressions can also be indicative for pneumaticity, but foramina are much stronger evidence. I think you have to remove "pleurocoels" here, as it is not a synonym of foramina. Maybe write "Most of the centra had small openings leading to internal chambers, and were therefore probably pneumatic (intruded by air sacs)."

Oh, and now I see that the 2015 paper does not consider everything referred to as "pleurocoels" in the 1972 paper as such, or as pneumatic. Instead, they seem to redefine these former "pleurocoels" as either foramina or fossae. So I will use those terms instead, but I have still kept one mention of "pleurocoels" in parenthesis, since we probably can't overlook that's how they were originally referred to. A good deal has been rephrased accordingly, does it look better? I was extra confused by the pneumaticity/pleurocoel thing, because I had written the whole article before I even knew of the 2015 paper (didn't show up in Google scholar, I found it by chance through the Theropod Database), so I had to adjust the existing text to that, which wasn't entirely successful... FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Most of the centra had pleurocoels or foramina (hollow depressions), and were therefore pneumatic (air filled, and containing air sacs) – As in the lead, I still think it is incorrect to say that something is pneumatic just because of the presence of depressions. Furthermore, only the foramina indicate that the centrum had an internatl chamber and was thus air filled. Maybe write "which indicate the invasion of air sacs" or something similar? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence I quoted above is followed by "This is strong evidence of pneumaticity", so I see they use more cautious language, which I have now also added. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, better.

• All above should be answered now, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here comes the next bunch then.

• Most of the centra had pleurocoels or foramina – I think you are contradicting yourself here, when you state that there were 36-39 caudal vertebrae which did not contain foramina in their centra.

Changed to many. I have instead specified in relevant paragraphs whether the "pleurocoels" were foramina or fossae, and replaced the word "pleurocoel". FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that only the anterior dorsal centra, but not the posterior ones were pneumatic (if I remember correctly)?

Only realised this now, I had also been confused by equating pleurocoels with pneumatism, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• although only the neural arches of the two first vertebrae of the tail appear to have had foramina – This sentence seems ambiguous, as it can mean two things: 1) Foramina are not present in the neural arches, except for the two first vertebrae of the tail. Or 2) The tail did not exhibit foramina, except for the neural arches of the first two vertebrae.

Reworded. Was a mess. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The cervical vertebrae were divided – I found this slightly misguiding, as you first assume that the individual vertebrae are divided. Maybe better "The cervical vertebral series was divided", or with "column" instead of "series"? Of course, it becomes clear later in the sentence, but it still hinders reading flow.

Rewrote so that it says the neck is divided, like the source puts it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• zygapophyses (the processes of the vertebrae that articulated between the vertebrae), – As you already stated that the vertebrae had zygapophysis, the first "vertebrae" in the parenthesis seems superfluous.

Hehe, cut. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The cervical vertebrae were divided into two distinct sections; those at the front had centra which were nearly triangular in side view, tapered towards the back, with low neural arches and short, broad zygapophyses – Here are some grammatical issues, you are missing "and" or something. Also, "tapered towards the back, with low neural arches" would still refer to the centra, but neural arches are not part of the centra.

That was also a very long sentence, which I've split in two. Also rewrote much of it, better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The pleurocoels here were small and oval with the neural spines forming long – Is some word missing here? What does "oval with the neural spine" mean? Is Pleurocoel = pneumatic foramina here?

Added comma after "oval", and said "and the neural spines" instead of "with the neural spines". And yes, those pleurocoels are what the 2015 paper call pneumatic foramina, so I changed it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• transverse processes (side projecting processes) – I would suggest adding "articulating with the ribs" in the parenthesis, this makes it easier for laypeople to look for them.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• directed upwards, except for in those at the front. – This does not fit with the first half of the sentence.

Cut down and reworded, I don't think this means much to most readers or has much significance. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The sacrum (between the pelvic bones) seems a bit weird, perhaps better "fused vertebrae between the pelvic bones"?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The tail had 36-39 caudal – Also for other vertebral counts, you should use the En dash, not the Hyphen-minus, like this: 36–39.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Y-shaped when viewed from the front and back diminishing in size towards the hindquarters – Again, something missing here.

Added comma after "back", better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The ribs in the neck were fused to the vertebrae only in adults but not in juveniles. – I would suggest you either say "to the vertebrae only in adults." or "to the vertebrae in adults but not in juveniles". This "only" and "but" combination seems redundant.

Snipped "not in juveniles". FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The scapula (shoulder blade) was thicker near the torso, thinning down as it curved away from the body. – I don't get it, thinning down towards the distal end?

Also some copy edit mess, changed to "The scapula (shoulder blade) was short and curved, thin at the front end, and thick at the back", if that isn't too imprecise. Before I'd said "away from the body" etc. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• It had three fingers, which were similarly developed; the first was the strongest, – appears to contradict itself. With "similarly developed" I would assume it means all fingers are the same length. But what did you want to say instead?

The source says: "The manus is tridactyl with all digits almost equally developed, the metacarpal 1 and digit I being the strongest, the metacarpal and digit III - the weakest. Digit Il is somewhat longer than adjacent digits." Seems to me what I've written is just a summary of that? "Similar developed" doesn't indicate they are identical. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The pubis (pubic bone) was long and slender with a "foot" at the end, a common feature of ornithomimids. – You mean the pubic boot? This feature is present in most theropods I would say, what is special about it to warrant declaring it "a common feature of ornithomimids"?

Nothing, other than that the source says "with a distal "foot" typical of the ornithomimids." So if I take it out, it may seem like the foot is unique to only this taxon? And I'm not sure I can say it is typical for theropods, as the source doesn't specify that. Any ideas? FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

When the source isn't more precise, I'm not sure you can do it better. Not sure if she means the presence of the pubic boot, or only its morphology that is characteristic of the group. Maybe write "with its end extended into a shoe-shaped structure typical of ornithomimids".

Wouldn't that be too much interpretation? The way I read it, "foot" simply means that it is an expansion at the end of a long structure... Not that it describes the shape itself. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

But this can't be what she meant, as an expansion at the end of the pubis is present in most dinosaurs. When it cannot be improved I would think about removing it, as it is misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed then, and added a bit on the ischium instead. She does elaborate on the foot like this: "The distal " foot" of the pubis ha s its ventral margin faintly convex in outline; the posterior portion of the "foot" is pointed forming a triangle, the anterior portion is shorter, thickened, bending slightly dorsally and outwards." FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• The femur was nearly straight, long, slender, with a sideways flattened shaft. – Maybe this is English prose I do not comprehend, but I would at least put an "and" before "slender".

Added. I think both goes, but it's probably good to add for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The third toe was proportionally shorter than in other ornithomimids. – This would mean "shorter in proportion to the second and fourth toe", but I think the contrary is the case. I think you take digit III length as proxy for acropodium length. Maybe simply write "The digits were proportionally shorter than in other ornithomimids". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The source says this: "They show that the third pedal digit of G. bullatus is much shorter than those in the Ornithomimidae hitherto known". So it seems that it is only this toe that is shorter (not in relation to the other toes, but in overall proportion with the body). But maybe I could word it better, perhaps "proportionally" is misleading. I tried this, which is closer to what the source says: "The third toe was shorter than in other ornithomimids". FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this didn't solve the problem; if you indicate that it is the third digit, than you have to assume it compares with the other digits. You should keep "proportionally", and you imo should write "short in relation to the limb" (in relation to the body makes less sense, as this is very difficult to measure).

Added "in relation to the limb", though the source doesn't state anywhere what it is in relation to... FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see: On page 107, she states that "Pedal digit III equal a third of crural length." With crural length, the means shin length. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• The above should now be answered. The whole pleurocoel thing was a bit messy, so may need a double-check. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I first continue with the skull, will answer the questions above later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• The temporal region at the side of the skull behind the eyes was deep. – Deep compared to what? The snout?

Source doesn't seem to specify, the full sentence goes: "Because of the extensive length of the snout, the skull of G. bullaIus is extremely long. Its temporal region is deep, the basicranial plane lies at an angle of about 30° to the palatal plane." FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• The infratemporal fossa – Is this a fossa around the infratemporal fenestra, or is it used as a synonym of infratemporal fenestra in the first description? If the former, I suggest to add a brief explanation mentioning its relation the infratemporal fenestra, which is a much more common term. The linked article doesn't help as it is about human anatomy. If the latter, I suggest using the terms infratemporal fenestra or lateral temporal fenestra, which are more common.

I was also confused by this, as there is no mention of the infratemporal fenestra, which does seem to be triangular. I think the fenestra is meant, so changed to that. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• (the cavity below the zygomatic arch) – I thought dinosaurs didn't have a zygomatic arch? Maybe write simply "behind the jugal"?

I said "the lower opening behind the orbit" instead, assuming it is the fenestra. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• The infratemporal fossa (the cavity below the zygomatic arch) was nearly triangular, smaller than that of the related Struthiomimus, and had deep muscle scars at the back part of the skull roof, along the parietal bone. – Is the infratemporal fossa really adjoining the parietal?

Ugh, that was another copy-edit, changed it to the original seperate sentence: "It had deep muscle scars at the back part of the skull roof, along the parietal bone". FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• The parasphenoid bone was thin-walled, hollow, and formed a pear-shaped, bulbous structure. – You should add where this bone is located (e.g. "the foremost bone of the braincase extending towards the snout"), otherwise it will be hard for most readers to understand.

How about "a bone at the underside of the skull's base"? That seems to be the simplest explanation I could Google... It doesn't help that there isn't any clear depiction of it and the "bulbous structure" in the source... FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• The structure opened at the base of the skull, and had a shallow furrow on its lower edge. – Isn't it this furrow which opens at the base of the skull? Or do you simply mean that the whole bone widens towards the skull base?

I think you're right, the source's introduction and description uses different terminology for the same things, so I've consolidated them now as "The structure had a shallow furrow which opened at the base of the skull". FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Here, one wonders what the significance of this furrow on the parasphenoid might be, that makes it more important than other parts of the braincase that are also described in detail by Osmólska but not here?

Simply because it is part of the "bulbous structure/capsule", which the species is named for, and which is emphasised throughout the original description. Otherwise I wouldn't go this much into detail about it, though it seems it may not really be a distinct feature anymore. I have found few more recent references to such structures, though... FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, ok. What about adding a short hint that this is the eponymous feature? The reader can only guess. When I first read the article, I didn't notice the connection, also because I was somewhat mislead by the introduction, which stated that the bulbous structure was at the back of the skull (you corrected that already). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be a bit wary of that, for example, I didn't mention in the Dilophosaurus article's description that the crests were the eponymous feature, as this would be kind of repetitive in relation to the history section, and be a bit divergent for the description section's theme... Maybe it's ok now with the corrected intro? FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• optic fissure – also needs explanation, especially since this is a red link.

All definitions I could find indicate it is a soft tissue structure, some kind of groove that is supposed to close as an embryo develops... I have no idea how that relates to what the 1972 paper seems to refer to, which is supposedly a bone structure: "Medially, under the optic fissure its margin is developed into antero-ventral tongue which overhangs the posterodorsal edge of the basis phenoid". I wonder whether there are two different uses of this term... Maybe I should remove the entire sentence, the thought has crossed me before... FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I never heard of this term as well. I think it should be the gap in front of the braincase and above the parasphenoid, which contains the optic nerve and other nerves (after they exited the braincase) as well as musculature for the eye. But I'm not entirely sure if Osmolska used the term in this sense. I would recommend to remove the sentence anyway, this is too much detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed, added it initially because it wa slisted as a diagnostic feature. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• The retroarticular process at the back of the jaw – Explanation could be more precise. What is this process doing?

Added "where jaw muscles attached". FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• The inner side of the beak had small, tightly packed, and evenly spaced columnar structures, which were longest at the front and shortening towards the back. – Also difficult to imagine. Are these structures bony extensions (processes), separate ossifications, or non-bony structures? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Heh, no one knows, this is discussed more in detail in the feeding section. There are different interpretations of what the structures represent (either lamellae or "ridges"), and the actual preserved part is pretty small. Therefore I've kept the description as vague as possible in the description. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Hm, but you know, when you read the article from top to bottom, you cannot know that this will be discussed further down, so you start to wonder. Maybe give some little hint here (e.g., "their exact nature and function are debated")? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I said "their exact nature is debated", since I assume the reader would know that their function isn't discussed under description anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

History of discovery

• I think there is still a slight potential here for expansion, based on [1] Jaworowska 2013, [2] Gradzinski 1968, and [3] Osmolska 1972. I would suggest at least to 1) specifically identify the mentioned "large skeleton" as the holotype; 2) to mention that both holotype and Z .PaI.No.Mg.D-l jl were discovered in 1964 from Tsaagan Khushuu, 3) add some information about the type locality, 4) and mention that the other of the three partial skeletons from the Nemegt basin comes from the Nemegt locality. See research below:

• • We know from [1], p.49, that the smallest Gallimimus skull, GI DPS, 100/10, was found in Bugeen Tsav; the "young individual" skull ZPAL Mg-D-I/2 in Tsagaan Khushuu; and a poorly preserved adult skull, GI DPS 100/11, also in Tsagaan Khushuu. The latter is the holotype specimen.
  • We know from [1], p. 50, that the holotype was discovered in 1964 from Tsaagan Khushuu, few days after the discovery of a small ornithomimid skull from the same locality, the first skull to be discovered in Asia.
  • We know from [2] that field work in 1964 at Tsaagan Khushuu was carried out from 18 June to 11 July; during this time, the holotype and the other ornithomimid skull have been discovered.
  • From [2], we know that Tsagaan Khushuu is a SE to NW trending ridge up to 70 m high above the ground, with fossils found on both flanks. The locality had already been discovered by the Mongolian Expeditions of the USSR Academy of Sciencey in 1948, and investigated in 1948 and 1949. From the map (p. 50), we see that the holotype was found from the eastern flank, few hundred meters apart from a nearly complete skeleton of Tarbosaurus and an incomplete skeleton (hind limbs, pelvic girdle, and skull) of another ornithomimid.
  • From [3] we know that of the three partial skeletons of the Nemegt basin, two are from Tsaagan Khushuu and one (nearly complete) from the Nemegt locality.

I think I've added most of these things now (info about Tsagaan Khushuu added to palaeoecology, ok there?). The nearly complete Nemegt locality specimen seems to be ZPAL MgD-I/94, and I've now listed its elements also. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• A small skeleton without a skull or forelimbs was also discovered in 1967 by the Mongolian Palaeontological Expedition in Bugeen Tsav outside the Nemegt Basin – Osmolska, p. 110, states that this skeleton was found with skull. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Darn, not sure what happened there, I think I confused it with ZPAL MgD-I/94, removed "without a skull"... I think the smallest specimen, IGM 100/10, is what's meant there, but it isn't specified. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just mentioning this here out of frustration, I'm having trouble identifying what mounted specimens are shown in some of the images, as they aren't illustrated in the literature in this form. This one[4] I suspect is ZPAL MgD-I/1, since the skull looks like that one after preparation, but since the 1972 paper states it has a full series of caudal vertebrae, that doesn't match up... Then there's the large skeleton on the left here[5], none of the sources state that a skeleton that approaches the holotype in size exists... I was thinking it might be "Gallimimus mongoliensis", but that's just guesswork... Lastly there's this[6] headless skeleton, but it doesn't match any of the one's listed, so maybe it was one of those that was found since the original description... FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Image caption: Location of the Nemegt Formation in southern Mongolia – it only shows the location of the Nemegt locality, which is a region within the Nemegt Formation.

Changed, maybe the image isn't entirely relevant here then? I tried with "The Nemegt locality in the Nemegt Basin of southern Mongolia, where some specimens have been found". FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Three partially complete skeletons, two with skulls, as well as many fragmentary remains, were collected; the largest skeleton was discovered by palaeontologist Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska in Tsaagan Khushuu in 1964, where one smaller specimen was also found the same year, and the other smaller specimen was found in the Nemegt locality. This doesn't read that well, maybe make two sentences out of it, as it is really long? Especially "and the other smaller specimen" reads a bit weird in combination with the sentence. Also, maybe remove the comma in front of "were collected", and write "another smaller specimen" instead of "the other smaller specimen", since no smaller specimen has been defined before? Finally, it would make sense to add specimen numbers here if possible, otherwise it is difficult to correlate this information with the specimen information given further below.

Re-ordered text. The description doesn't state specimen numbers in the introduction which that is summarised from, so it will have to be a bit of "original interpretation" to correlate specimen numbers with specimens. As mentioned earlier, I am not sure if the small specimen mentioned last is actually the smallest one, IGM 100/10. It also makes more chronological sense like this, as they only received their numbers after being stored at museums, but I see what you mean. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

IGM 100/10 is that one from Bugeen Tsav, as stated by Osmolska (p. 110). Well, I don't see a problem of chronology here, they got field numbers when discovered, which just changed later. But one alternative would be to add clarification on which specimen is which in the second paragraph, where you are listing the material, e.g. "IGM 100/10, from the Bugeen Tsav locality, lacks a pectoral girdle …". By adding the locality, the identity of the specimens should be clear already.

Relisted localities in second paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• in reference to the bulbous capsule on the base of the skull – I would mention that this refers to the parasphenoid, for clarity.

The structure is only part of the parasphenoid, though, and the etymology in the paper doesn't even mention that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I still have my reservations about not clearly stating what the structure is where the name refers to. It might not be clear for everybody, and clear statements are always better than letting people guess. But its your decision of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The holotype, excavated from Tsagan Khushu, – now redundant

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• consists of a near complete skeleton, except for a distorted snout, – Not sure if "except for" fits grammatically. Maybe "missing only" or "is nearly complete except for"? Furthermore, if something is distorted (the distorted snout) does not mean that it is incomplete; this refers to the quality of preservation, not the quantity. Maybe make an extra sentence containing this qualitative information.

Changed back to pre-copy edit wording, is it better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Much better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The species involved have generally been kept separate by other writers – they have been also by Paul, but you are talking about the genera, not the species. Maybe "have been kept in separate genera by other writers". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. I had meant they were kept separate from each other, as in different genera, but it's best to be clear. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Alright, those were probably the last things I am able to fix before my absence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I hopefully will have reviewed the next sections until your return. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Classification, Palaeobiology

• this category of classification had a wider range than was used for modern birds. – Maybe more precise "this category of classification tended to be more inclusive than was used for modern birds."

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Since their eyes faced to the sides, their binocular vision would have been limited, which is an adaptation in some animals that improves their ability to see predators behind them. – Binocular vision and seeing predators from behind are two different things, right? Perhaps end the sentence after "limited", and then start again with "Sidewards facing eyes are an adaptation …"; as it currently is, it is not clear what the "which" is referring to.

Paul makes it seem like decreased binocular vision is what makes it easier to see predators from behind: "Because the eyes faced somewhat sideways, binocular vision was more limited than in some other protobirds, a typical adaptation for improving an animals ability to detect predators from behind". I rewrote a bit, what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• functions include … a relation to high metabolic rates – the latter is not a function. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Went back to pre copy-edit wording... I wonder how much is even left of that copy-edit by now after all these reversals? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think the In 2017, Lee and colleagues might need general overhaul. It is grouped under the section "Palaeobiology", but it is not clear what paleobiologic question it is addressing. I think if you haven't heard of the study before, it will be very hard to comprehend what this paragraph is all about, and what it actually tries to say. First, I would suggest adding an introduction sentence, which is making clear that 1) the following is addressing a specific fossil (which is not clear from "how a Gallimimus foot was associated with a trackway"), and 2) why it is significant enough to be addressed in an own paper. Without a bit of background, it will be hard to follow this paragraph.

The specimen and its significance is listed in the end of the third paragraph under history. For now I have made a further connection (other than "Lee 2017") by stating the year it was found (2009) in both sections, and moved some info down. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• various possible taphonomic circumstances (changes during decay and fossilisation), causes to explain how a Gallimimus foot was associated with a trackway – this is vague and unclear.

Is it any clearer after the above was added? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• but the depth of the foot may be too shallow – maybe add "sinking depth" or "within the sediment" to make clear that you are not talking about the dimensions of the foot?

Added "in the mud" as the source does. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• been made over an extended amount of time and drying – "made over an extended amount of drying" does not seem logical. Maybe "made over an extended amount of time, during which the substrate changed from wet to dry."

Added "and period of drying" to be brief. The source says "It is almost certain that the tracks were made over an extended period of time, and that some or even most of the tracks were made after a period of extended drying." FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• and were probably not produced by the owner of the foot – Maybe add "individual", to make clear that "owner" is not the taxon.

Said "individual that owned the foot". FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• But is Gallimimus still considered a possible/probable trackmaker? Is there only one morphotype of tracks?

Added "some of the tracks are consistent with ornithoimimid feet, while others belong to different dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• breaking through the sandstone layer – it would have been just sand back then, becoming sandstone during diagenesis.

The source says "One day, a Gallimimus may have walked across the floor of the pond and broke through the track bearing sandstone layer while the sediments were still soaked from rain". I changed "sandstone layer" to "sediment layer" as a workaround, if that makes any sense. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I know you state in the history section that the trackway is preserved in sandstone and the foot in mudstone, but since this information is much more crucial for the paleobiology section, I would suggest moving it here, adding or combining it with the proposed introductory sentence.

I moved this and some other circumstantial info down is it better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The area may have been a single bone bed – you mean, before the poaching?

Added "based on the possible number of poached specimens", which should explain that this is before poaching. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The fact that the animals seem to have died at the same time – You didn't mention before that there is more than just the foot! So what is the evidence that these apparent additional specimens died at the same time? Maybe make it its own paragraph, as gregariousness is certainly a topic worth discussing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, this is only indicated by the fact that other specimens seem to have been looted from the same level of the quarry. I added "based on the possible number of poached specimens" and "the empty excavation pits were stratigraphically identical". I also added the following to show how it is known several specimens were present and poached: "(as indicated by empty pits, garbage, and scattered broken bones in the quarry)". FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• He also observed that the tight intramandibular joint would prevent any movement between the front and rear portions of the lower jaw. – Was this interpreted regarding feeding? If not, it might be better discussed with the bit on cranial kinesis, or even in the description section. Here, it is not quite clear to the reader what this information is adding to the paleobiology.

I think such kinesis would be most relevant to feeding purposes, no? So since that paragraph is about Hurum's interpretation of feeding function, I found it most relevant there. Since the sections generally give the reasearch topics in chronological order, I think spreading out Hurum's few but related observations thin over several sections would mess this up a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• with the most similar condition – maybe something more precise than "condition"? "beak anatomy" or something similar?

Said "with structures most similar in anatomy to those of Gallimimus" to spell it out. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The discovery of gastroliths (gizzard stones) in ornithomimids also point towards a herbivorous diet, as these are used to grind food of animals that lack the necessary mastication apparatus. – This is not generally true, only when they form a gastric mill (see the Wings, 2007 review paper). This seems to be the case in ornithomimosaurs, however. But I still wouldn't let it sound like "gastrolith = grinding food", which is not true.

Oops, reworded to make clear that the conclusion was based on the possible presence of a gastric mill, as the source states. Strangely, most Google results and Wikipedia indicate gastric mills are exclusive to crustaceans... FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Lark Quarry has one of the world's largest concentrations of dinosaur tracks in any case. – Maybe remove or integrate with introductory sentence (and remove the "in any case"), as it doesn't add anything new relevant to the article's topic, and seems a bit out of place.

Added to beginning. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hope I was not too critical this time; this is a very solid work overall. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's understandable, there were some major flaws left, such as the pneumatic stuff, and the perhaps too intrusive copy-edit. But at least you surpassed the length of my Ceratosaurus review, though the fact that you didn't answer under each bullet point makes it look shorter, hehe... Review envy! By the way, I've added this new photo I took in Poland, not great, but it shows the shape of the leg bones:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

• Grooves between the spines were formed by ligament scars. – I see slight issues here. First, I think the scars do not form grooves, they are developed as grooves. Second, "between the spines" seems a bit weird, since there is, of course, the gab between the vertebrae. Third, I think that the fact that grooves are present is not the point (that applies for other dinosaurs as well), but the fact that these grooves are enlarged.

The source says "Scars of interspinous ligaments form narrow grooves", but I guess my wording makes it read incorrectly. Anyhow, I just removed the sentence, inspired by the discussion below, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• the shafts of the ischia were grown together below and along their upper half – slightly confusing, doesn't that simply mean they are coalesced their entire length?

Yes, I don't think it was necessary anyway, so removed. But I added "ending in a pubic boot which expanded to the front and back, a general feature of ornithomimosaurs" based on the Dinosauria, since similar info was removed when we couldn't identify the pubic "foot". FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My very last comment now is more of a question than a critique, as I noticed that your approach with the description is slightly different from mine. You have quite a bit of general info that applies for dinosaurs in general, or is at least not diagnostic for the genus, including general morphology of all important bones. First my personal take on this: 1) there might be a problem that people think that all these features are specific for the genus, as you do not always state what is a general feature and what is specific. 2) it creates a degree of redundancy with other dinosaur articles. 3) it might make an article unnecessarily "blown up"; general morphological description without any obvious implication can be tedious to read for lay readers, and the important diagnostic details are more difficult to find. For these reasons, I didn't include such general info that isn't of obvious value and interest for lay readers. But you probably have equally good arguments, that's why I'm asking, and I would be ready to change my writing style accordingly.

I for sure understand that basic description of morphology has its value. But do we really want to do that for every genus article (creating a lot of redundancy and arbitrariness in what we include)? For the future, it might be a better idea to have these extended bone-by-bone descriptions on the articles of the higher-ranked taxa, in this case Ornithomimosauria (which all need urgent attention anyways). Here, the descriptions could be much more complete (since combining material from a number of genera), with minimum redundancy. Furthermore, review papers are more frequently published, avoiding the need to decide which parts of a 40-year-old paper are still relevant today.

Another thing I would like to discuss is that there are some features mentioned (e.g., the Meckelian groove) that are not only highly technical and difficult to comprehend (as, in this case, not visible from the outside), but seem also kind of random. I don't see any justification for mentioning the Meckelian groove but not one of the hundreds of other skeletal details mentioned in the papers. I'm also mentioning this having Brachiosaurus in mind, where the "postcranial skeleton" is on genus-specific things only, while the skull section contains non-specific details such as interdental plates while other details are not mentioned. These differences in the B. article sections certainly reflect the different sources, and I don't have a solution for this (other than cutting the skull section down somewhat). Still, to reach highest quality, we should think about these issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, which I guess is related to what we expect the readers want to know when reading an article, which is of course influenced by what we ourselves want to see (I described some of my thoughts on this in the Brachiosaurus talk page[8]). First, I think that most readers who come to this article, or say Brachiosaurus, are unlikely to read a higher level article, since most people know about specific genera and want info about them, not their families. Especially when it comes to "famous" taxa like this one, which can be seen as a kind of ambassador for their group; many people will read this article, while few will read, say, Anserimimus. If we kept all info on features shared within a family to the family article, we would barely even have a general description of the animal's skull and body plan. Yes, all ornithomimids lacked teeth, had long necks, long legs, small heads, three toes, etc., but most people probably don't know that, and if we only list diagnostic/unique features for each genus, the articles would be fairly meaningless to anyone but experts. In this sense, I'm leaning towards how more popular dinosaur books are written for layreaders. One book for wider audiences I have (Familiar Dinosaurs, text by Joseph Wallace) simply describes Gallimimus as follows, for example, mentioning not a single unique feature: "Slim legs; long, whiplike neck; large keen eyes; large brain. Long, thin forelimbs ended in 3 attenuated, clawed fingers".

Personally, I would want to see more than just diagnostic features when reading the description of an animal, and rather than redundancy, I see it as giving each animal a "complete" treatment that can stand alone, without having to chase links to other articles to get a comprehensive overview and context. It is of course up to individual taste where to draw the line, but is also dictated by what details are mentioned in the sources; we can't write what the sources don't state, obviously, so some genera will have more detailed descriptions of their skulls than others, simply since they are treated differently in the respective sources. A similar discussion was made about article's about individual ships. To what extend should individual articles go into detail about the class in general? I and many others thought there should be general info for context and comprehensiveness, but some of course disagreed, you can see the discussion here:[9] My comment there is similar to my approach here: "You can't expect that most casual readers who go to read about a specific ship has also read about whatever class it belongs to. I agree that for comprehensiveness, such background info should also be included in the article about specific ships, at least in summarised form."

I of course see your point in that it can then be hard to figure out which of these features that are then unique to a given genus, but then my best solution would be to simply state specuifically when they are and when they aren't, when the sources make this clear. That is of course more difficult when basing descriptions on older sources, but I think it is better have "too much" info than "too little". But note that in the case of Achelousaurus, I did find some of the description info too detailed, but it's, again, up to individual taste. As for Meckelian grooves and interdental plates, this is because I imagine most readers don't even know the animals in question had these features, even though they are general for their groups, and that they must have some significance anyway since their describers mention them. But to be honest, some of these details are also sometimes because I simply have a better understanding of skull anatomy than postcranial anatomy, so I tend to summarise postcranial features a bit more loosely... But yes, this part is probably the least defensible issue you raised... FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your points. And I certainly do not want to ban any general information from the genera articles; a lot of it is needed to provide a complete picture. My question was rather whether we need a bone-by-bone compendium (e.g., we have to have a sentence about the radius to have all major bones represented, although it is damn boring). And if, for such a bone-by-bone attempt, the higher-ranked taxon articles wouldn't be better. I see that genus articles get more hits, but I also think that it will be no problem for anyone to find this info, as these group articles are the natural place to look (the group is linked in the first sentence of the lead). I am also thinking about an article Dinosaur osteology, which can provide a great deal of basic information, and where we can easily link a lot of technical terms to (the human-centric medicine articles we usually link to are often not very helpful when it comes to dinosaurs). Still, I see that we should keep a good deal of general description also for genus articles, especially if these features are generally variable within dinosaurs. And having re-read the description section, I am now almost completely convinced that this is the way to go (although I maybe wouldn't cite the chevrons, which are always Y-shaped and always diminish in size from front to back; also, the rough articular surfaces of the humerus do not appear to be important, perhaps say something about the deltopectoral crest instead, as that tells us something about muscle strength in the arm). I am, however, not convinced that we should mention features just because we assume that most readers don't know about them (in that case, we should in general do much more on braincase and palate anatomy); and their presence alone does not make them more relevant than all other features mentioned in the literature. If you mention such features with the aim to educate readers, it might be a good idea to also describe their functional implications (e.g., what did the Meckelian groove contain?), otherwise readers might not learn much from it. Going to promote the article by tomorrow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are right about some of these features not having to be mentioned, and as for the Meckelian groove, I couldn't even find out what its function was, which is why I don't explain it... I wonder how many people bother to even look art the higher level articles, if we for example look at ornithomimidae, it only receives 327 hits in ten days[10], whereas Gallimimus, for example, gets 2.333.[11] The dinosaur osteology article sounds like a good idea, maybe we could then merge some stubs about dinosaur specific anatomical features into it (such as thagomizer, arctometatarsal, predentary), or maybe that's just me... Maybe the recently created Bird glossary could serve as a model, many technical terms redirect to respective sections in that article. And by the way, thanks for encouraging me to write that culture section after all, I think it ended up being rather interesting, with pretty solid sourcing... FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes ok, though I don't know how many of these clicks really read our description sections in full length. In my opinion it is generally a good think to also have short articles indicated to specific anatomical features (for example, the thagomizer article is not really a stub, and contains etymology and info which goes to far for an general overview article). Few articles I wrote myself (e.g., Hyposphene-hypantrum_articulation) are also too detailed that everything important can be summarized elsewhere. But the very short ones could well be merged at least temporarily. And I really like your idea to have something similar to the Bird glossary, I didn't even know that exists. Would be of great help. Although "bird terminology" is better defined and more specific than that of dinosaurs; and it might be better to focus on a "Glossary of dinosaur anatomy" first? Or even choose a more inclusive grouping (e.g, "Glossary of anatomical terms in paleoherpetology" to include all tetrapods except mammals)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the bird glossary is something people didn't know they needed, but which is in wide use now, because many technical terms now redirect to there. Maybe some kind of article about general dinosaur anatomy could also include osteological subjects, I've long thought we needed something like that (maybe it could include dinosaur coloration)... I think paleoherpetology is maybe too wide a subject, because in the end, little in such an article would not not also be true for herpetology in general. And thanks for the review and pass! FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure; it was about time that I let it pass ;-) So lets stick with dinosaurs then. But did you imagine a general "Dinosaur glossary" (would that also include things like footprints and bone histology?) or a "Glossary of dinosaur anatomy"? If the latter, do you think it should mostly include terms not specific for dinosaurs, like centrum, prezygapophysis etc., to be of use? Because most terms also apply to other groups. That's why I thought about a more general paleoherpetology glossary, which is better constrained. It would not overlap with herpetology so much because it would be primarily osteological details, were modern herpetologists are not concerned with to such an extent. Or we start with dinosaurs first and move the general stuff into a more general glossary in the future. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to my mind is this "Dinosaur skeletal anatomy" post[12] by Justin Tweet, which you could maybe look at for inspiration. So in addition, I imagine a dinosaur anatomy article would of course go into soft tissue. Diagrams like these by Scott Hartman could also be useful there:[13] A general dinosaur glossary would of course have a much wider scope. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I will give it a try once time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the sketchy draft of "dinosaur life appearance"[14] I have had in my sandbox for years could somehow be incorporated into it too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)