Talk:Jianianhualong/Archive 1

Archive 1

Writing Style

Just my opinion, but off a skim this article seems way to technical. If someone wants the fine details there's a paper, but in my eyes wikipedia should avoid that territory. Lusotitan (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been advised in the past to include comparisons to other taxa, so that's what I've done here. I'm open to any suggestions for what to cut. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Either way, my philosophy is to write too much and then cut it down. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Restoration

Is there any reason why the free restoration in the paper[1] isn't used? The restoration that is used here seems to have a strange issue where the wings are mirrored, so the inner left wing is almost identical to the outer left wing, which leads to errors such as a missing third claw, and the neck also appears too long... Also, this illustration of a Mei fossil seems very distorted compared to the photo it is based on:[2], and we do have an actual photo[3] of a fossil... FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason for either AFAIK, except I didn't find the Mei photo for some reason... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok, looks better now, I think, will add the inaccurate palaeoart template to the other image... FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the other work by that guy any good? It's always felt off to me but I don't have the eye for anatomical detail to tell if they're truly inaccurate. One of his features on the Corythoraptor page, off the top of my head, as well as the Laiyangosaurus page. Lusotitan 19:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

His newer stuff is certainly better than the earlier, but it would be nice if the images were posted for review... Don't know if anyone has notified him. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I would probably place the interpretative drawing of he skeleton somewhere in the article too (now that you use a cropped image in the taxobox)... FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Any ideas for where to put it? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe under discovery or classification? Or by the tail section maybe... FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Former is done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Good place, I think, since those sections usually explain what parts of the skeleton are preserved, which is nicely shown by the diagram... FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(Long-belated) Rfc for level of anatomical detail in dinosaur articles

I've been recommended by other editors to start an Rfc for this issue, which originated from this article but is actually much broader in scope.

As you can probably see in the Description section of this article, as well as that of Eolambia (the descriptive text in these two articles is largely my own work; I am sure there are additional examples written by different editors in other articles), anatomical descriptions of dinosaurs can become quite protracted despite the best efforts of editors.

This is mainly because some dinosaurs - especially newly-named taxa - receive relatively little attention in layman-accessible publications; and also because some of these taxa have few or no "noticeable" distinguishing characteristics which can be communicated generally with no need for jargon.

Opinions of editors belonging to WP:DINO on this subject, from what I have seen, can be roughly subdivided into two camps (excluding those who have neutral stances): anatomical detail is useful information that should be retained; and anatomical detail is information that can be obtained from the paper, which thus does not need to be repeated in Wikipedia articles.

I'm curious as to what the wider community of Wikipedia editors might think of this issue. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm not totally certain how what a Support vote for this RfC would entail, because this is more a discussion that a vote (this looks to be a true request for comment). I will disclose my conflict of interest: "I am a regular editor of articles on extinct animals", from which there is minimal description except for osteology. I would say that I weakly agree that more detail is better, although my own style is slightly more minimalistic. I think that anatomical detail, as long as explained or linked, is always a positive, until the point that the article encompasses topics that even us regular editors do not fully understand. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, it's way too complex. It's also basically a regurgitation of Xu et al. 2017. Any references published prior to this dinosaur's discovery are not directly pertinent to the dinosaur, and any sources that aren't in Xu et al. run the risk of WP:OR. Wikipedia articles should never have the same level of anatomical detail as primary literature: We're absolutely kidding ourselves if we think someone is going to use Wikipedia to diagnose a specimen they find in their backyard, or to complete their graduate research on troodontids. It's fun to play armchair paleontologist and write articles that appear very scientific, but it does a disservice to readers (most of whom will be turned away by the sheer glut of paleocruft). I think all editors need to be mindful not only of the FUTON bias, but the bias of free CC-licensed content: before I even got to the references I knew the source article had to have come from PLOS or some other CC-BY open access journal. I'm a science geek myself, and find interest in things that most don't, but I'd imagine even Robert Bakker would yawn reading "phalanges of the hallux are long, being collectively 31% of the length of metatarsal III", especially in a general encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is supposed to be). This article (and others like it) would benefit from us taking a step back from the primary literature, taking a good honest look at the amount of material about this dinosaur, not the material Xu et al. used to describe it, and consolidating proportionally. If I'm reading an article on Muhammad Ali I don't need to know every color of shorts he wore in the ring. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• As I've voiced before, including on this talk page (and in relation to Eolambia), I'm in the camp this is an unnecessary level of detail. Animalparty summed it up better than I could. It's fine if some things here and there are a little much for a general reader (indeed, that's probably for the better), this level of every technical detail is far more than is necessary. Lusotitan 04:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• For reference, although it seems to have stopped working, this would seem to put Eolambia and perhaps Jianianhuanlong in the top 20, which isn't shocking seeing as the former is slightly longer than the current FA-nominee Achelousaurus, who description section might be useful for comparison (I've brought up previous FAs/GAs before, but the point was brought up things were more lenient then; this one is currently going through the process and has no such problem). Lusotitan 04:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think it depends on a few things. For example, if a taxon is so recently published, such as Jianianhualong, it may be a problem that we only base the article on a single source. Since the source hasn't yet been evaluated by other researchers, we are therefore taking it by face value, based on a single "POV". On the other hand you have Eolambia, which has been known for a while, and where the article reflects many different views and an "evolving" discussion about its classification, which I think is quite appropriate (note it also just passed GAN, reviewed by a veteran dinosaur editor, Casliber). I think the level of detail could depend on this, more than arbitrarily making a cut-off point for how long a description section can be. As I stated earlier, some taxa have very detailed descriptions published about them, some don't, so there is no way we can standardise how long or detailed our description summaries can be. As long as all jargon is explained, I don't think length and complexity is an issue, especially if we compare with many articles about other subjects that go through FAC. A way to test what the wider Wikipedia community thinks about this level of detail could simply be by sending Eolambia to FAC and let "layman" editors review it (requesting a copy-edit might be a good idea first)...

Another thing with this article in particular, which Animalparty seems to have touched on, is that older sources that don't specifically discuss this taxon are used in the description section, which may be a WP:synth issue. I think using such sources would be ok in for example the palaeoecology section, or text that discusses troodonts in general, but it seems problematic under description. If those sources are actually cited in the Jianianhualong paper, you should cite that for those statements instead. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think we should try for more than just providing a summary of the scientific articles. We are writing for laypeople, so the articles should be, ideally, completely accessible and engaging to read. When deciding whether to include an anatomical detail, I always ask myself the question "Can a layperson learn something from this information?". In my past articles, I tried to do the following.

1. I include anatomical features which are directly accessible and help to develop a detailed picture of the animal in the head of the reader. Ideally something that the layman can observe while standing in front of the skeleton in a museum. This can include body size and weight, length of important body parts, the general body plan (even when there are redundancies with many other articles), standard counts (e.g., number of teeth, vertebrae, digits), the external shape of the body, or other characteristic features obvious for the layman. Such features will be in most cases external features; bones not visible from the outside (e.g., palate, braincase) I would not mention without good reason. On the other hand, I would sometimes describe characteristic external features (e.g., the shape of horns) in great detail: such descriptions will improve the understanding of the anatomy of the layman (while a detailed morphological description of, e.g, the pterygoid bone, will not).
2. I include anatomical features which are connected to some interpretation (and I will try provide the interpretation in the same sentence). This gives the reader a good insight into how paleontologists work, and makes the article an interesting read. This can be features which are phylogenetically significant: Autapomorphies (this feature serves to distinguish the taxon from related ones); important synapomorphies (based on this feature, the genus can be referred to group x); and, importantly, any feature which can be interpreted in a functional or any biological way (the large bony process indicates a strong muscle x, suggesting a powerful forelimb). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, if the bony details are what defines the dinosaur, then we need to describe them. And as accessibly as possible. there are some details that are possibly too detailed for general consumption, but they are hard to generalise about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

---

• We seem to have a similarly split camp here still, so I think it'd be best to wait for some actual laypeople to enter this discussion. So far I think this about sums up the arguments people have here, either: we shouldn't include everything because interested individuals can look through the primary sources; or we should include everything we can as accessibly as possible. I think the approach Jens has would be a good one for this because it provides a pretty good, less subjective approach to how comprehensive articles can be. FunkMonk also has a good point that articles should include more if there are more sources available, and avoid relying strongly on a single source (such as on this article). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• It would be useful for passers-by like myself to see what the two alternatives look like. For example, if this article is currently in the complex style, there should be a sandbox somewhere with what the simple alternative would look like. There are plenty of topics where people have complained that the article is too complex and should present material in a more digestible manner. See Evolution and Introduction to evolution for one attempt. I have seen requests that articles such as Symplectic spinor bundle be presented in a digestible form! Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll use featured articles as examples here, since that is the closest we can get to what has been accepted by the wider community. One of the most directly comparable featured articles I can think of would be Deinonychus (related animal, has a lot published about its anatomy), but note it was featured in 2007, which is before the FAC process was revamped, so I'm not sure it would pass today. There, the description is very short, and barely even explains how the animal can be distinguished from closely related species, and leaves out basic facts like its serrated teeth and the number of toes. On the other hand, a recent featured article about a meat-eating dinosaur I wrote, Baryonyx, also had a long anatomical description published, but I've condensed it to a size appropriate for the current FAC criteria of comprehensiveness and coverage. The description in the article is shorter and less detailed than in Jianianhualong, but much longer than in Deinonychus. Another recent FA about a meat-eating dinosaur, Carnotaurus, has a comparable description length to Baryonyx. It should be noted that recent featured articles about well-known plant eating dinosaurs with even longer (Ankylosaurus, Heterodontosaurus) or shorter (Amargasaurus, Nigersaurus) description sections do exist. They are still not as long as the one in Jianianhualong, but that may partially be an illusion caused by this article's many sub-sections. FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: To extend on what FunkMonk is saying, I'll display the "evolution" of our Corythosaurus article, one which went from a rather measley description to an FA-quality one. The current version has a decent 2-3 paragraphs for all major anatomical features besides the non-cranial skeleton. This means we should probably add another 2-3 paragraphs to generally describe the vertebrae, limbs and girdles.

Now, lets go back to about halfway through the articles expansion, to revision 617210641. One thing is extremely noticable about the description section, it is smaller by about half. The anatomical information here is general details, and there is no explanation about the soft tissue preserved. I would say that under that version, the article should not even be a Good Article, which is why it was so heavily expanded. (If you look closely, the skin section is down under Paleobiology, but lets ignore it for this example).

Going farther back in its development, visit here. The description section is organized more like a list then an essay, something we've generally agreed to change. In this version however, the anatomical terms and details are probably too advanced for general people, with a word-for-word quote from a published paper.

Don't worry, this is the final example: [4], the very first presence of a description section. Note the almost inexistent detail on anything other than features that distinguish the taxon, and the very generalized anatomy.

From these examples, which do people think is the best course of action: moderate details (current), minimal details (one of the past), or high detail (future expansion to include postcranial details). If unsure, don't worry, I'm not trying to overpower the first general editor to come here ;) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the moderate detail option would seem to make the most sense. Also, note Corythosaurus is a GA, not an FA. Fixing that on my to-do list, as it happens. Lusotitan 18:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking back at this, I think I've worded myself poorly. A section on postcranial anatomy would be in order, I feel, should such information exist. But it would just be, like, a shorter, moderately detailed, two paragraph thing, rather than several highly detailed ones as in Eolambia. I said "moderate" because I feel in existing sections, no additional detail is needed to become super-technical like Eolambia (they are of similar length, but Corythosaurus takes up a lot of that talking about the crest, so it doesn't have stuff like this: "At the back of the skull, the quadrate articulates with the squamosal with a joint that is D-shaped when viewed from the top"). The only thing that jumps to mind as a missing is a need for the mention of the many teeth hadrosaurs have, since that's a fundamental thing we can't assume readers know (also, I've noticed the size section reads terribly, I should get on that...). Lusotitan 15:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from someone with a degree in biology but no particular interest in the fossil record. I'd like to know more about the creature, e.g. whether it could fly (I think the article makes it clear that this is not known, but it's not explicit) and what it ate (if this is mentioned, I missed it). I can accept the stuff about its bones - after all, that's all there is. But I could do without all the conjecture about how it evolved to be that way. Our articles on living species could also contain conjecture about how they evolved to be the way they are; I'm glad they don't. Maproom (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Some people are interested in how species evolved into how they are, though, so it would be strange to leave it out if the info is there. Seems such info is also found in our featured articles about living animals, such as elephant, amphibian, or grasshopper, and leaving it out certainly conflicts with our comprehensiveness/coverage criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Also from someone with a degree in biology but no major specific interest in the fossil record. I have no objection to anything in particular in the article, technical or not, but rather to the way things are presented in (or out of) context. I know it is hard to draw a perspective in the face of WP rules against synthesis, but the article contains whole chunks of text to which my reaction is "err... Oh. I suppose. What does that imply if anything?" Phalange Z is shorter than Y, is it? Well, great, but does that tell us anything? Does it tell of the ecological niche, or the taxonomy or evolution, or explain the bodily functions, or how to distinguish the species, and if so from what??" I'd say go through the article and try to omit or modify everything that has no explicit relevance to anything else. Ask yourself: "Is the reader going to wonder why I said this? Is s/he likely to read it to find out whether Phalange Z is shorter than Y, without knowing that that is a characteristic of the group?" I'm not being very coherent, sorry, but that is my ha'porth, since someone asked. JonRichfield (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment from a long-time WP:DINO editor. The level of detail in the Description section of Jianianhualong is too long, and too complex for the average reader. The "Description" section goes on for 21 paragraphs, more than twice as long as even very robust FAs such as Tyrannosaurus. This is overkill. Moreover, this level of detail (for example, "Metatarsal III is 72% of the length of the femur, which is shorter than that of Sinovenator which is 90% of the length of the femur", etc), will not be of interest to most lay readers. Why is it important to mention that the "olecranon of the ulna is mildly developed"? In what article would this be helpful to the average reader? Many readers will be students assigned to do a report on 'dinosaur x', and toe proportional length or "mildly developed" bones will not be useful for them. This is not a formal description in a peer-reviewed paper; it's a Wikipedia article. There may be instances where bone proportions or development will be useful to the reader, but this article has no context on why the mention of the "mildly developed olecranon" is important. This seems to be, at least in part, a regurgitation of the peer-reviewed paper describing the fossils, rather than an article which would help readers understand what the animal looked like. Wikipedia:Summary style gives guidance to editors on the level of detail in WP articles: "Articles over a certain size may not cover their topic in a way that is easy to find or read." Firsfron of Ronchester 06:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I have cut 1,500 words from the Description section; the product can be seen in my Sandbox. Any thoughts? Anything further I should cut? I have tried to restrict the text as much as possible to only the synapomorphies as well as a few noteworthy comparisons. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: The section is now shorter than that of current FAC Achelousaurus. I don't think the Tyrannosaurus Description is a good example because the review was a long time ago. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I feel it's much improved. However, I still see a lot of bone length comparisons ("the jaw being about 75% of the length of the femur", "the slender humerus is about 70% of the length of the femur. The ulna, which is 88% of the length of the humerus", "The overall length of the hand is 112mm, 140% of the humerus and 95% of the femur", "the ilium is small, being 60% of the length of the femur", "The third metatarsal is 72% of the length of the femur", "It is also much larger than the other phalanges in the digit, being 1.4 times the length of the first phalanx", etc), which I don't think do the reader any favors. These measurements are of course used in a formal description, but few Wikipedia readers are going to find useful the fact that the ulna is 88% as long as the femur. And outside of formal scientific descriptions, measurements such as a femur length just aren't used, meaning readers will have a hard time relating to these non-standard units of measurements. YMMV. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good point. There are ways to compare length that don't involve specific figures. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You simply shouldn't doubt yourself so much, Lythronaxargestes. It's really very simple. There's information that is irrelevant in relation to the subject, like "sugar is sweet", and there is information that is relevant to the subject, like much what you have, ill-advisedly, removed. True, when you have a shortage of time, or of understanding, you have no alternative but to impose limitations on your writing. If you have time and knowledge, use that time to make that knowledge accessible to others. Of course, the function of an encyclopedia differs from that of a scientific article. You must translate the arcane terminology of anatomy into more mundane language. This is not so difficult, as the subject is itself not very difficult. There is nothing here that the average man could not understand. Whether that man would be interested is a different matter. But that's irrelevant. We write not for those who wish to remain ignorant but for those who desire to learn. Many of these have a short attention span. Therefore we create an equally short lead that in the simplest possible language lists the main points. Some, however, will want it all. And it is our duty to provide just that.

It has been suggested above that these simple, benign and self-explanatory tenets would in some way be in violation of the policy. They are not. Especially the Summary Style policy does empathetically not forbid any level of detail. "Articles over a certain size may not cover their topic in a way that is easy to find or read" does not mean that it is forbidden to add information — if so, we might as well close Wikipedia — but merely orders us to split off subarticles when the main article length becomes excessive. So when you exceed 100 Kb, you should consider creating a Osteology of Jianianhualong ;o).--MWAK (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Eloquent speech by MWAK, but nonetheless I think I may have some more input to be given. I think that a specific size correlation to a description section would be a bad practice, especially after beginning my expansion of Europasaurus. The skull description already has 3 paragraphs, which so far have only covered 5 of the skull bones. I don't think these paragraphs contain too much jargon or pointless language, as the published description contains about 5 paragraphs on every single cranial bone (ignoring those discussing ontogeny). So with the vast amount of knowledge available, I have a lot of wiggle room to work with.

This follows suit with what you can do to Jianianhualong. Sentences which just discuss bone lengths and features bear little meaning, so give priority to those that discuss what this means for animal function, or how this differs from in other animals. Stuff such as the "Phalanx II-2 has a pronounced head ..." doesn't mean anything, unless you give it the context of adding " ... like in other dromaeosaurs, which has been termed the 'sickle claw'". Adding reference from the bone anatomy to the general knowledge/appearance of an animal immediately gives such a sentence relevance, which is otherwise lacking. Also, comparing the anatomy to more popular dinosaurs (eg. Velociraptor, Deinonychus) should be given priority to lesser known ones (eg. Atrociraptor or Sinornithoides) when you have a choice.

Lusotitan, Animalparty what do you think of the current description present in Europasaurus, is it reasonable, too lacking or too excessive? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I agree with Firsfron of Ronchester here. Consider the following excerpts from WP:What Wikipedia is not: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. And: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Information like "the jaw being about 75% of the length of the femur" is imho not really knowledge, its data. Yes, the reader should be able to learn as much as possible from the article. But what is he supposed to learn from these details if they have no direct significance for implications about the animal? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

These rules are meant to protect us from the absurd. It might be true and very useful information that there's a bakery at the corner of street X in town Y, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. Series of books have been printed, for many decades, containing all telephone numbers of Germany but they do not need to be repeated here. Poor little dinosaur Jianianhualong is not capable of generating such detail nor does it, as a typical scientific subject, have the triviality of a shop. Indeed, some published information on a dinosaur can be seen as a sort of unprocessed data, like its scoring in a cladistic data matrix. But claims like "the jaw is about 75% of the length of the femur" are not of a primary source nature: they are obviously interpretations, the researchers after all comparing the raw length data and combining these into a new insight: that a certain relative proportion can be distinctive. So it becomes, in principle, "accepted knowledge" on publication. And the reader does not have to learn anything from any detail. He should simply be able to learn the detail if he wishes so. Let him decide what value resides in it. We are not an educational project.--MWAK (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There are cases when we are absurd in our detail level (only example I can think of is Jianianhualong) but most of the time I think that we do a decent job of explaining anatomical details without going overboard. Similar to what Jens said, we need to think of the relevance. Using plain measurements or details without any more information doesn't allow for general readers to have a sense of what we are discussing. Providing measurements with comparisons or how these affect the life appearance gives infinitely more information and understanding to the reader. Like we generally say "A picture says a thousand words". If a reader remembers a picture of an animal that you compare to, then they can understand what is slightly different and they now have a picture of the subject. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, we have to place the detail in its context. It will then prove to be neither trivial nor redundant.--MWAK (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from a medical doctor with a thoroughly superficial, but long-term interest. First, many thanks to Lythronaxargestes who has worked so hard on this, and to the other contributors. On possible improvements, I'm less worried about the level of osteological detail than about the layout of the article. The specimen is what it is - mostly, bones - and these do need describing at some point. But as a general reader, I want to know the higher-level analyses first. And I'd suggest structuring the article as a journalist might do, with the things most interesting to the general reader at the top. So I'd start with the palaeobiology and a reconstruction, then its environment, then the rest of the palaeoecology. The taxonomic position probably comes next. Finally comes the detailed description of the specimen, and this section I'd start with the preserved feathering. On then to the osteology, and the detail here is certainly, well, rather detailed. I like the version in Lythronaxargestes' sandbox better, and I feel that it it much more suitable for a reader at my level. If it's at the end, I suspect that most general readers will skip it, and I suggest that that's fine. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts, User:FunkMonk and User:IJReid? I know you did some work on elaborating the standard section order for WP:DINO (which is followed here) some time ago. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as the sections are there, it's probably ok to experiment with their order (though I think it's better to do that with newly expanded articles, not older articles if they are fine)... But as I mentioned elsewhere, I think at least it makes sense that discovery always comes before classification. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to put the anatomy at the beginning, the classification in the middle, and the paleobiology at the end, also because this reflects how paleontology works: Classification is based on anatomy, and paleobiological implications are based on both classification and anatomy. When we do it the other way around we probably would need to introduce quite a bit of redundancy (because we usually state what the evidence is for any paleobiological implication). Possibilities to think of might be 1) Moving the Discovery right at the beginning before the anatomy (would make sense from a logical point of view!), and 2) move anatomical details important for classifications to the classification section (e.g., as a section "distinguishing traits"), and details with functional implications to the paleobiology section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

For the paleontologist, undoubtedly. For the interested general reader? I think not. I suggest starting with what makes the thing interesting to a general reader. Who is the majority intended audience of Wikipedia?

I'll shut up at this point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was that the section "paleobiology" can be very difficult to fully understand for the general reader when he/she doesn't get at least some basic information on anatomy and classification first, because these are the basics. For example, to discuss the function of complex head structures will be difficult without discussing their anatomy first. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the order suggested by Jens and Funk, paleobiology is the most dependant on previous knowledge so it should follow last or close to it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, the whole idea of presenting the higher level analysis stuff first should be accomplished by the lead section. More basic and covers the stuff that the reader wants to know at a glance. That said, I feel the point does ring true within the sections. A description section that gives a generally sense of its outward appearance first and *then* explores all the fine, technical details would be far easier to digest than jumping right into stuff that goes over reader's heads (ditto for subsections).

I also agree with Richard Keatinge that the sandbox version should be implemented. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

With apologies to MWAK, I've just implemented the shortened version of the Description for this article from my sandbox, which I thought I had done. I am not sure why I wrote so much back for this taxon back in 2017, but I would definitely not write this much today. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

As it happens I seem to have entered a similar mindset of writing less. But my current descriptive works at Diamantinasaurus or Cetiosauriscus for example feel to me to be the best I could write, they are mildly technical but the features discussed draw relevance from comparisons to other taxa or descriptions of the shapes of the bones or features. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 07:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the fourth level headers, they seem rather unnecessary and some contain single paragraphs. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)