Talk:Lurdusaurus/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Macrophyseter (talk · contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This is my first time as a GA reviewer, so please bear with me.
Comments
Lead
- "...genus of massive and unusually built iguanodont dinosaur..." Personally suggest replacing "built" with "shaped."
- "Its metacarpals (wrist bones) are fused and reinforced into a large block, and the thumb spike is remarkably enormous..." I think metacarpals and thumb spikes can be split into two sentences.
- better? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's much better now. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- better? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- "...900 cm (30 ft) long and 200 cm (6 ft 7 in)..." Is there a reason why this is in centimeters and not meters?
- I wanted to remain consistent with units and avoid decimals in the lead, and I use 70 cm off the ground later User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keeping it at centimeters would arguably be more inconsistent as you put the same dimensions in meters in Description (without decimals as well). I wouldn't worry about the 70 cm mention, since that would make sense given it's below 100 cm. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I wanted to remain consistent with units and avoid decimals in the lead, and I use 70 cm off the ground later User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Discovery
- "She named it "Gravisaurus tenerensis"..." The name should be italicized, even if its a nomen ex dissertationae.
- "However, in 1999, before her dissertation was ever published... published the first formal description..." I don't think her thesis was ever published. Also, the current wording makes it read as if Turquet cheated Chabli out, which I highly doubt was the case.
- "...discovered the remains of an iguanodont..." Specify that this is the holotype specimen.
Description
- Double check that the tenses and comma placements are correct, this goes with every section.
- In the first paragraph, clarify that the measurements are specifically of the holotype unless they are consistent among the genus.
- there're so few specimens as it is so the measurements would extend to all of them User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see. Then I think in this case that's okay. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- there're so few specimens as it is so the measurements would extend to all of them User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- "...but the dentary fragment..." Redundant as it's already mentioned a few lines above in Discovery.
- "...the dorsal centra are proportionally larger, and have shorter neural spines (which project straight up from the centrum), and less steep transverse processes..." I think the commas can be removed in this case.
- Wikilink caudal vertebra (Vertebra#Other animals).
- done
- "The limbs are exceptionally built..." Elaborate?
- The rest of the paragraph elaborates User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I meant that the term "exceptional" in this context wasn't clear to me and can use some elaborating. Perhaps this can be done by using a different adjective (i.e. "robustly"), but if "exceptional" is what the source says, I guess we can just stick with it. Macrophyseter | talk 18:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- "exceptionally massive" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- I meant that the term "exceptional" in this context wasn't clear to me and can use some elaborating. Perhaps this can be done by using a different adjective (i.e. "robustly"), but if "exceptional" is what the source says, I guess we can just stick with it. Macrophyseter | talk 18:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- The rest of the paragraph elaborates User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The tibia is incredibly short relative to the femur – 777 mm (30.6 in) and 910 mm (36 in)" Confusing wording. Do the measurements refer to the tibia and femur respectively?
- fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- The current wording is clear enough so this is optional and probably a nitpick, but I personally find it slightly awkward for the "vs." to show up at the given point (But this may be just how I'm used to reading, and others can differ). I think a wording like "...femur – 777 mm (30.6 in) and 910 mm (36 in) respectively..." or a variation would add some smoothness. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The metatarsals were so short that they did not make contact with each other" I would suggest "The metatarsals were too short to make contact with each other" for brevity.
Classification
- "...as a either a derived iguanodont or somewhere intermediate between more basal iguanodonts and more derived hadrosaurs..." The current wording makes the second possibility sound like a redundant rewording of the first. I suggest a rewording to something like "...derived iguanodont or an intermediate between the iguanodonts and the more derived hadrosaurs..."
- "...still within Styracosterna..." specify that this is a clade.
- "...new clade "Iguanodontea"..." Quotations are unnecessary.
- The format of the cladograms seems a bit unnecessarily spacious. I would suggest formatting them to be side-by-side, as done in Elasmosaurus and Mosasaurus.
Paleoecology
- Wikilink facultatively (Facultative).
- done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- A gaffe on my end, but it turns out there's a better wikilink for this (Facultative bipedalism). Apologies for the inconvinence. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
See Also
- None of the wikilinked dinosaurs appear relevant to this article.
- they're all possibly semi-aquatic non-avian dinosaurs User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. That works. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- they're all possibly semi-aquatic non-avian dinosaurs User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
All I have for now. I'm glad to have learned about this interesting dinosaur! Macrophyseter | talk 23:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Some more comments...
- "...and there was likely a fleshy pad to support the weight." (Description) This is optional, but I think mentioning how this is comparable to the foot cushion of elephants would greatly help the reader understand what this means. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- source didn't make a comparison with elephants User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Moot point then. Macrophyseter | talk 16:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- source didn't make a comparison with elephants User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
That's all I have. Once all the remaining points are addressed, the article should be good enough to promote to GA. Macrophyseter | talk 16:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is a "shrink-wrapped" re~storation[1] I can try to fix if we want to use it (it was removed for that and other reasons). FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Macrophyseter | talk 16:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- What else am I missing? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's all I have for the review, All my comments have successfully been addressed (The one about commas and tenses was more of a general reminder than a specific comment) I'll be able to promote this article. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Conclusion
[edit]- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass
- Pass or Fail:
Thanks for getting yet another article to GA! Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)