Talk:Lythronax

A few issues

Many sentences in the article are copied from the given sources. This is not permitted, so I suggest to reword some of the sentences in the paleobiology (although the feeding section was partially reworded) and classification (the sentences below the phylogeny tree) sections. Furthermore, I am unsure about the reliability of these sources, since they cite the first description, but a lot of claims they made don't appear in it. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the PLOS One journal is has the same license as Wikipedia, we could copy it all in theory. A few other journals are like this as well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no sentences copied from the PLOS One journal, so this is not the problem. The other journals did not show their license, they only showed that they have all rights reserved. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

When I modified the second paragraph in the feeding section I never even knew that it was a direct copy from the ref, even though I suspected it was because it wasn't even near the encyclopedic standards. Want me to go through everything that is not sourced by PLoS ONE and reword it slightly? Iainstein (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work! Jinfengopteryx (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome, again. Iainstein (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or do the scales on the new restoration look highly improbable? FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I doesn't seem like it. It might just be a little to scaly. I'll compare it to the legs of brids. Could you make a restoration for the article with feathers? Iainstein (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I already made one, actually, but it's still under review. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, perhaps one of the skull only images would b better in th taxobox, than the one that also contains another gnus? FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I picked that one, because it shows the whole (reconstructed) skeletal of the animal.

PS: Can I remove the size figures? Because they are from a media article and from my experiences with size estimates, numbers which don't appear in scientific papers but press are mostly made up. By the way, measuring skeleton in the description yields an axial length of roughly 7 m (23.0 ft). Jinfengopteryx (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone reply to that? Because otherwise I'll just remove them. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, a size figure only derived from newspaper articles and the like is usually worse than no size figure at all. There are enough examples were such articles basically only consist of hogwash, so we should not use them to source pages that are supposed to be accurate. --Ornitholestes (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the website for the Natural History Museum of Utah a verifiable. If so, why did you remove the figures. Also, National Geographic is more reliable that press releases and also supports the size. Iainstein (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are pretty reliable, but they need to be sourced properly in-article. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean. I think they are sourced standardly, how would you properly source something? Iainstein (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

But the NatGeo article said 7,3 m and not 8 m.

"At 24 feet (7.3 meters) long and weighing about 2.5 tons, the 80-million-year-old Lythronax (pronounced LYE-thro-nax) lacked the even-more-massive size of T. rex, says the University of Utah's Mark Loewen, who headed the team reporting the dinosaur's discovery in PLOS One."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131106-king-gore-tyrannosaurus-dinosaur

By the way, this is another problem, the sources are contradicting each other. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

They both say 24 feet. The Nat Geo ref says "7.3m (24ft)", the UMNH ref says "approximately 24ft (8m)". when converted, 8m is 26.2ft, not 24, so I safely assumed that UMNH said approximately 8m. After converting 24ft, the answer was 7.3m, so that's what I changed the article to. Iainstein (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The skeletal reconstruction from the description paper has an axial lenght of 6.8m (is measuring that already too much original work?). Newspapers, Museums or National Geographic are alltogether terrible sources in this regard, as the discussion above proves. They contradict each other not just sometimes, but on a regular basis, they are incapable of correct unit translations, and they do not usually bring any support for their claims. In other words, usually what they write is made up by the journalist. Such as that supposedly 7.3m long theropod weighing in at 2.5t (!). "Verifyable or not" is not the question. "Wrong or not" is.Ornitholestes (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If a media article claims something that it does not give an unambiguous reference for, especially if that claim is in disagreement with the scientific paper it supposedly bases on, that should make us very suspicious. Ornitholestes (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Going for GAN

I know this might seem a bit premature but I went through the article to see if there was anything to improve since people have stopped adding new info. The only problem I found was the feeding section which I standardized to meet wikipedias standards. If there are any comments of things to improve before it goes to GAN please inform me so I can fix them or do them yourself. Iainstein (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is way too early for this to go anywhere near GA, a subject needs to be covered by several sources, and all we have now is a single paper and some press releases based on it (so basically the same). We'll need to wait at least until this taxon is reviewed in a few other studies, which will take years. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that so never mind. I'll just go ahead and add some more info. Iainstein (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Added to this, press released aren't really good sources IMO (especially because they include a lot of stuff which was not shown in the first description they are citing). That's the reason why I very rarely use them as a source. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

They can be alright for circumstantial info, however, which is often not mentioned in the papers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• IJReid, I was just thinking this might finally be ripe for expansion, perhaps a future collaboration? FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah if there are enough papers that discuss more than just phylogeny it should be good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, did a Google Scholar search, and there seems to be little to nothing that doesn't just mention it in passing... Should be possible to write a relatively short article mainly based on the original description. It now has a lot of nice images, though! FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking of doing this as a short "speed-run" in between larger articles soonish, and we also need to show how a tyrannosaur article can be written following "modern" dinosaur FAC standards, the last tyrannosaur FAC, Gorgosaurus, was from 2008, which was a very different time in that regard. Still interested, IJReid? And I wonder if Lythronaxargestes might have an interest for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah this oldie. Yeah I can probably contribute, it would tend to be large editing across short time periods. I can try and whip up a description section when I have time, I'm much more into the descriptive, classification or historical writing but the description looks like what we need the most. I can do it shortly when I have time. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I can do history then. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as description goes, it is basically complete for others to check over. Theres really not much in the description other than diagnostic features and a three paragraph description, and there isn't anything elsewhere I've seen yet. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Neat, this is on my bucket list of articles to expand, haha... I can help with both description and history, although I suppose I would be more useful in classification. I've got limited time nowadays but I'll see what I can do. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool, there are a couple of books that may be relevant (At the Top of the Grand Staircase and Tyrannosaur Chronicles), if someone needs stuff from them. I think the former is needed to write the history section. I don't have too much time myself, but there is no deadline, of course. Articles like this are much easier to get done than what we usually work on, due to the lack of complicated history. I'll try to reduce the pop science reporting links which have clogged up the article (though some of them give useful info on the excavation). I can't find the original description of Teratophoneus, I wonder whether there is anything relevant there... FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I skimmed it and didn't see anything: [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool, note that Lythronax wasn't named at the time, so it may be referred to by some placeholder name. Sometimes called "Waheap tyrannosaurid", UMNH VP Loc. 1269, and "Nipple Butte Tyrannosaur" in pre-publication literature. I think the description looks good, I wonder if we should add a short line about tyrannosaur integument (especially since people may wodner about the restoration)? The Grand Staircase book (which should be a relevant source) says on p. 506: "Although small-bodied, Early Cretaceous tyrannosauroids possessed protofeathers (Xu et al., 2004), integument may have varied across the clade or during ontogeny." FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the bit on feathers and also expanded the reference now that I've got the book to check on. There doesn't seem to be much more info in it that the description or what we already have in the article about biogeography. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we mention in the restoration's caption that the feathers are hypothetical? FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, should we add that Greg Paul says "May be a member of Tyrannosaurus"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Could make sense as a brief note at the end of some section (Classification?) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, classification would probably be the most fitting place. Also, since the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has been cut down by the US government, I was wondering whether there should be some text about this and how it may affect further discoveries, as I did in Kosmoceratops (fourth paragraph of discovery)? FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to fit with the general theme of the section so I think adding a little blurb about it would have no downsides. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Now added (history is pretty much done), and I just noticed Lythronax itself was mentioned in the presidential proclamation, which makes it even more notable, though I very much doubt Trump wrote it himself... Another thing, I was looking at the various news source size estimates, and apart from being somewhat inconsistent (we should probably cite more than one source for balance), one cites Loewen as saying the specimen was a juvenile and could have grown longer? Perhaps worth noting it, while making clear it was in an interview? "An imposing 8 meters (roughly 24 feet) from snout to tail, the juvenile that’s been unearthed truly would have been the top predator of its ecosystem — if you ignore the 12-meter (40 foot) gator that patrolled coastal waters. Lythronax adults could have topped out “at maybe 35 feet long,” notes Mark Loewen. That would make it about 80 to 85 percent as big as a T. rex, this University of Utah scientist explains."[2] FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Two other things, I wonder if the description should be written in past tense? And it seems most of the paleobiology section was sourced to news sources, and that there is very little about this in the actual paper, not even a specific mention of binocular vision, which otherwise seems like an important point. So it seems we are forced to use the news sources for some of that kind of info, when quoted to the describers? Maybe there is some general info on supposed tyrannosaurid behaviour in the Tyranosaur Chronicles book? FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll park some papers here that cover Lythro in their phylogenetic analyses and might be of use:[3][4][5][6] FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll do a bit more work on the classification no that I have time for it, though I'm not sure how to incorporate the biogeographical discussion that seems to use a lot of vague terms for who and when said what. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hehe, I wonder whether the extra time is related to a certain virus? I ran into a similar issue with Kosmoceratops, which ends in a humongous biogeography section. It was accepted during the FAC, so I wonder if the same structure could be used here (had to do a lot of digging to get the beginning and end of various arguments). FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems like in this case it is more related to the classification that the paleoenvironment. Loewen used their phylogeny to suggest a north-south divide, and only one interchange. Brusatte & Carr used their phylogeny to suggest no divide and multiple interchanges. Then Voris uses Carr phylogeny but suggests north-south divide and multiple interchanges. I just don't understand where the information currently in the section comes from. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the info in this article seems to be from various news sources rather than journals, and I pruned most of the paleobiology section as a result... I guess that we just need to mention some more authors and dates in the biogeography section, so it can make chronological sense. I wonder whether Slate Weasel might have any interest in this article (already did the size diagram), if they are on a Corona break too, and the Argentinosaurus FAC seemingly on the right track? FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy working on dicraeosaurids right now, although I may put aside some time to redo the size comparison (it's not really up to my current standards). I was thinking of working on Peloneustes after Argentinosaurus, seeing as there's no shortage of resources on it and we're lacking in marine reptile GAs. Additionally, this article is already quite long, and, ironically, I actually struggle working on longer articles, so I fear that this is a little out of my depth right now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixing up the diagram would already be a good help. And yeah, we have no pliosaurs up to good standards yet, I have also thought about expanding Kronosaurus at some point... By long articles, do you mean articles that have already been expanding a lot, or some that could be potentially long? FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I did quite a bit of work on Luskhan way back... could be another candidate for GA. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

By "long" I meant "already substantially expanded." Here's the updated size comparison, by the way. It's height is perfect for biting of your head, it seems ;) . I haven't worked on charts in awhile, I forgot how fun it was! Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! There seem to be some unintended lines around the dinosaur's arm? And the hindmost calf/drumstick seems bigger than the one at the front? FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The lines were a layering error, which I just fixed. I think that the calf size discrepancy is mainly due to the proximal part of the near one being obscured by the body, therefore making it look off (this has happened before). Would swapping the leg position help perhaps? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of suggesting that, probably the easiest solution. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure does! FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that it has gone back to the colour scheme of its first-ever version, haha... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've dropped the ball on this article (ironic)! A certain virus has also freed up my time too, so I should be able to tackle palaeobiogeography. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ahah I just did a bit of a write-up on that since I had the sources open from the classification. I cut out the bits that I couldn't find a source for but that left the beginning of the section feeling choppy so feel free to modify it however you want. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we're all in the same boat on this, hehe, even though I'm home due to the outbreak, I still have to work, so I sadly haven't gotten much more time freed up... But I hope I can get some more work done on this article and Limusaurus. Luskhan looks good, perhaps we could get some artsy folks to make a couple of images for it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added some text summarizing the state of the art to the start of that section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice, feel free to add text anywhere in the article as you see fit. It seems some of the Teratophoneus paper[7] also goes into biogeography? I'll add a bit to the description (there were some details in the description and some news stories which might be good to mention), and then I'll write the intro (the tedious part). I'm a bit worried about the paleobiology section, maybe there is something general about tyrannosaurs we could write there... FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added a bit of text to the summary. The Teratophoneus paper doesn't have too much to say about the patterns of dispersal, but it does talk about endemism. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as paleobiology, the Tyrannosaur Chronicles has a bit about binocular vision, feeding adaptations, growth and reproduction but its not a very scientific read and I'm not sure whether finding the original sources would be better. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the description's citations - "Tyrannosaur paleobiology: new research on ancient exemplar organisms" - is a review paper that might be a good start, if not a bit outdated. I could tackle expanding this section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it has to be pretty general anyway, since we will probably not know anything uniquely for this genus any time soon. Can be sprinkled with some more specific statements by the describers form the news reports maybe? By the way, should we show this diagram[8] in the paleobiogeography section, to illustrate at least one of the discussed hypotheses? FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

We could add that image... my concern is that it's redundant to the cladogram we have already. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the pictured correlation between clades and sea levels, plus it has the colour code for where each genus lived... But yeah, the cladogram itself is redundant, but it is more the context that is unique. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've expanded the part of palaeobiology that is most specifically pertinent to Lythronax. There could be another paragraph of general comments about tyrannosaurids, but I hesitate to write too much - lest it becomes a content fork of what should properly be at the main tyrannosaurid page. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've now expanded this latter paragraph to what I think is the point of maximum usefulness for this article, with the information being framed primarily around the review paper's comments on tyrannosaurids. I'd like to call this section done for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice! I wonder who wrote the paleoecology section, as it was looking good even before I started working on the article, and do we think it needs more? And thinking about whether we should be consistent in how we write dates for studies, in the history section, I've just written "in 2013", while under classification, years go in parenthesis (2013). I think the former would be easier to decipher for most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision history suggests that IJ wrote most of the section back in 2013. I'm fine with it as is. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to expand the intro, add a bit to the description, and proof-read the article in the coming days. Is there anything else we think needs to be done before GAN? FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks and reads coherently to me, only thing that I think is missing is a counterpoint to Paul's assertation it is Tyrannosaurus, which could probably just be taken from Brusatte & Carr or something. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem with including Paul's synonyms is that there are usually never any responses to them in science journals. What do Brusatte and Carr say? In Gallimimus, I just cited subsequent papers that ignored his synonymisations, stating "The species involved have generally been kept in separate genera by other writers". FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Brusatte and Carr don't say anything about Paul. We have some ready-made citations that we can use to support its continued separation, though: Brusatte and Carr is one, and we can also use the Dynamoterror and Thanatotheristes papers. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, Lythronax (the editor) said there was excessive white space between the images under classification, though t looks fine to me. How does it look now? Maybe it depends on the screen. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It must be the screen, then. This is what I see: [9] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably a result of different screen dimensions. If the problem is still there, just change the "width=70%" to a smaller value until there is no longer an issue. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No bueno. My setup probably isn't conventional, though, so not a major concern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think this can be nominated for GAN (and listed for copy-edit) in a day or two, if no one has anything to add. Can someone familiar with Brusatte and Carr add the part about "disagreeing" with Paul on synonymy? And another issue, I think it is important to mention the large "subocular flange", since it is mentioned in both the diagnosis and description, problem is, I'm not sure what it is... Even worse, it seems to be misspelled in one mention, and it appears there is contradiction of where it is located. In the diagnosis: "presence of distinct suboccular flange on jugal" In the description: "A strongly developed process on the anterior border of the postorbital process indicates the presence of a large subocular flange, contrasting with the much more modest postorbital subocular flange of Teratophoneus and other tyrannosaurids." I wonder if it refers to the projection from the lower postorbital into the orbit, but I don't know. It isn't mentioned in the skull diagram either. Maybe Jens Lallensack has an idea? FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it means that there is an anteriorly projecting process on the postorbital process of the jugal (the branch of the jugal that projects dorsally to articulate with the postorbital). The anterior border of the postorbital process was overlapped by the postorbital (which is missing?), which is why the anteriorly projecting process (of the postorbital process of the jugal) is hidden from view in an articulated skull. However, if the jugal had such a projection, the overlying postorbital can also be inferred to have had one at the same position, and this inferred process would be, as you mentioned, the "large subocular flange" that projects into the eye (subocular = below the eye, the eye was positioned in the space above this process). Does this make sense? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, I could explain subocular flange as "a projection from the postorbital bone into the lower part of the orbit"? Which is also what seems to be shown on the skull diagrams. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct, and precisely what is shown in the diagrams. Although the postorbital itself is not known; but that process on the jugal that lies beneath forms the "core" of the flange, thus providing some information on the likely size and shape of the flange. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the same paper has a skull diagram of Teratophoneus which refers to the projection into the orbit as "sof, suborbital flange"[10], which I assume is just a slightly different term for the same structure? The Lythronax skull diagram also has "sop, suborbital process"[11], which I guess might be the corresponding process on the jugal. But it is difficuly to figure out when none of these terms are used outside the image captions... FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, suborbital flange and subocular flange should be the same, and yes, suborbital process is the part on the jugal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to adjust it accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added some text about implied disagreements with Paul. I don't think there's too much we can really say because there's very little comment in the literature about this (even in Brusatte and Carr about the position of Lythronax). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through and made some copy-edits to the article. Let me know if you disagree with any of the changes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, two comments: I was intending to expand the second paragraph of the intro after I had expanded the description, that's why it was a single sentence. So as in other articles, it will end up being three paragraphs, the first about discovery/naming, second about description, and last about the rest. Second is the part about it being the "great uncle", it is of course a silly notion in itself, but I think it is interesting to shows how it was reported at the time. But I think the info was more relevant in its original position, where it came after the text stating it was used to examine the evolution of tyrannosaurs, and because the place it was moved to now is more about naming, so it comes kind of out of the left field with little context to the surrounding text. FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on both counts; I wasn't totally sure about the purpose of either of them. I've reinstated the original positions of those snippets. Agreed that the second makes more sense in the context of Loewen et al. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I now expanded the last part of the article, sent it to the copy-editors, and GAN nominated it. It might need some more anatomy links here and there, and I wonder if words like morphotype could be explained or rephrased. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to Jens Lallensack for the detailed review, we could send this straight for FAC, unless we want to wait until it gets copyedited.[12] One thing that wasn't entirely resolved was how to term the anterolaterally directed orbits, which are now "orbits that faced almost forwards". I'll list the various options here, any thoughts? "Almost entirely forwards", "nearly forwards", "faced both forwards and sidewards" (as a direct translation of anterolaterally), "forwards and to the sides", "between the front and the sides", or using the scientific term but with gloss? And relatively: "faced forwards to a similar degree seen in Tyrannosaurus", or "where more forwards-directed than in other tyrannosaurids except"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of an absolute measure (i.e. deviation in degrees from parallel), I like the comparative options best. They are wordy, though, so we need a simplified terminology for subsequent mentions (e.g. "relatively forward-facing orbits"). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess those will only work in places where there is a direct comparison, though? I think we need a phrase that can stand alone too. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• I did some fixes and started the FAC, so feel free to add your names to the nominator field! FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• For some reason the cladograms also look squeezed together to me now. But they didn't before... Any idea why, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think he changed the {{col-begin}} from width=70% to 50%. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In the process of making the skull diagram larger, I ended up having the issue of whitespace, which lythro said he had as well. The width adjustment was trying to universally fix that, but I also thought it might look too compressed. Because of the written comparison, we could always remove one of them, otherwise the options are either to move the image, settle for whitespace, or leave as is. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

unreferenced claim

Lythronax probably was not a direct ancestor of Tyrannosaurus. -- That is not stated in the National Geo citation, which comes in the sentence directly after it. If this is not referenced it is speculation by an editor and should be removed. 98.67.0.97 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

From the cited article: "Obviously we wanted to get 'king' in the name," Loewen says. "Lythronax wasn't a direct ancestor of T. rex, but they clearly shared a common ancestor, [one] who lived even longer ago." Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Taxobox Image

@FunkMonk:So, the image we have right now is good, but it could be better. I'm proposing a new image, shown down below. This image is at the Natural History Museum of Utah, and also shows the holotype skull. However, I want more opinions on it first. BleachedRice (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• The new image I'm proposing.
  The new image I'm proposing.

That image has a non-commercial license[13] so it cannot be used here. It will be deleted from Commons once a bot reviews the license. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:Okay, I have uploaded a photo of a Lythronax mount to Wikimedia Commons. I think that it could replace our current taxobox image. One reason is that our current image does have some cropping off near the tail, and the angle of the photo might make the mount look bigger than it actually is. The foot in our current image is a little cropped off(but that's kind of nitpicking). However, there are those signs around the mount which may be distracting. The new image's clarity is a little better than the old image. The angle is more at the same level of height as the mount, and no skeletal parts are cropped out. The things that might be a little bad on the new, proposed, image is that there are some skeletal mounts of other tyrannosaurs in the background, although it's clear that those are not the featured animal. The other thing is that the head of the mount is turned, so it blocks most of the neck. I do have many more pictures of this mount from other angles, so I would like a second opinion.BleachedRice (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• 
  The new image I'm proposing.

Yeah, your new image is definitely better, as it is not as foreshortened. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lythronax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 05:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Finally! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, also for the excellent images of the skull, I'm pretty happy about the juxtaposition of the two angles... FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I had no idea the review was in progress already! I'll jump in on some of these. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a notice is added by a bot on the talk page, but if you have turned off bot edits form your watchlist, you won't see it... I wonder if IJReid noticed it has begun. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I was actually aware, but things are just being completed almost immediately already I hadn't jumped in to make any edits yet. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• At our last FAC, I was reminded how difficult it is for lay readers to comprehend our technical articles on dinosaurs, simply because of the sheer number of technical terms. At least in the lead, I suggest to avoid them where possible. Optional suggestions (for the lead):
  • In 2013, it became the holotype of the new genus – "In 2013, it became the basis for the new genus …"

Done, though I think basis would be even less comprehensible for the average reader, because it doesn't link to anything? How about just type specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• • specific name -> "the name argestes" or at least "the specific name 'argestes'".
  • generic name -> same as above.

Took the latter on both of the above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• • in various details of the skull and postcranial skeleton – "in various details of the skeleton"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• • orbits: Link and gloss

I just said eye sockets instead. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• • maxilla, process – as above

Doesn't "bone of the upper jaw" explain maxilla? Linked both and kind of explained process. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• These teeth differed in size, with the frontmost ones being almost 3 cm (1.2 in) long. – Even if you mean "tooth crowns" (excluding the roots), 3 cm seems much too small. According to the skull diagram crown height should be more up to 8 cm.

Facepalm - the source said 13 cm, not sure what happened... FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• and it is thought to have diverged earlier than the clade which includes Tyrannosaurus. – the use of "the" in "the clade" indicates that a specific clade is meant here, but not sure which one? Lythronax itself is forming a clade which also includes Tyrannosaurus. I guess you wanted to say that Lythronax was more basal than Tyrannosaurus?

Changed to "it is thought to have been more basal than Tyrannosaurus". But maybe this is pointless information? I was thinking most readers know what Tyrannosaurus is, so maybe it's good to mention it to give an easy reference point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Lythronax is important in the study of the evolutionary origins – I suggest "is important for understanding the evolutionary origins"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• both eyes of Lythronax faced forwards – this was already mentioned in the lead.

Good catch, fixed. I wasn't sure what Funk was going to put in the second paragraph of the lead but I forgot to take this out afterward. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In 2017" – why is this year linked in the main text, but not the other years including the year of description of Lythronax?

Removed link. Not sure it would have been useful either way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• At one of the last FACs, it was suggested by a FAC coordinator that we collapse the taxon navigation template at the very bottom of the article by default. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed it at the template itself, if that's what's meant:[14] FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unearthing the fossil remains took a year of careful excavation – "Unearthing" and "excavation", these are redundant. Suggest to remove one of these.

Reworded completely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• took a year of careful excavation in 2010 – this means that excavation was during the entire year 2010, and only during that year? I doubt they excavated in winter.

The source only says "It required a year of careful excavation in 2010". I'm not sure what exactly that means. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we replace the word "year" with "season" since they are presumably equivalent in context? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We could also either leave out the date 2010, or leave out the word "year"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• genus and species – species should also be linked.

"Species" appears in the paragraph before so I linked it there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• tyrannosauroids should be linked and explained at first mention.

That is already linked as "tyrannosaur" in the discovery section. Should it be duplinked? I changed the mention under description to: "Although earlier small-bodied members of the Superfamily Tyrannosauroidea". FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• their presence could have varied with classification in the clade – suggest "their presence could have varied between species"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• maxilla and jugal bones of the upper jaw – the jugal is not part of the upper jaw

Looks like this has been removed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Since the outer margin on the side of the maxilla and jugal bones – not clear without direction of view. I guess dorsal view? Also, "on the side" seems superfluous or at least does not help much.

Reworded entirely, should address both of the last two points. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• faced almost forwards – well the "almost" could mean that they did not face forwards. Maybe add "entirely"?

I was also unsure what to do, as "anterolaterally" wouldn't mean anything to most readers, but there isn't a good way to say it plainly. So "almost entirely forwards", or how about "nearly forwards"? Becuase if it is between the two, it can't be almost entirely, can it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

maybe "faced both forwards and sidewards" (as a direct translation of anterolaterally), or "faced forwards to a similar degree seen in Tyrannosaurus", or "where more forwards-directed than in other tyrannosaurids except …"?

I'm also thinking about all the other places it is mentioned, so would be good with something that isn't relative to other taxa. I think "forwards and sidewards" seems a bit confusing, and while some dictionaries say something like "in front and to the side" or "in front and away from the middle line", that might be confusing too. Maybe "forwards and to the sides" or "between the front and the sides"? Which is quite a mouthful. Or maybe we could in this case use the technical term for direction, and then add a longer explanation in parenthesis at first mention, as an exception? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• frontal bone (a bone at the top of the skull) – gloss should come at first mention. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It was originally glossed there, but I removed it because it's glossed in Discovery already. Gloss regardless? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It is only linked in the Discovery, not glossed? But there is an earlier instance of "frontal" in the description section also, the gloss comes too late. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Thought "gloss" referred to the dinogloss. Fair enough, I'll move it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• as in other all known tyrannosaurids – "all other known"

Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• serrated – could be linked

Both done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Lythronax argestes belongs to the family Tyrannosauridae, a clade of large-bodied coelurosaurs – I suggest "belongs to the Tyrannosauridae, a family of" to keep it simple.

Done that. I've also broadly replaced "clade" with "group"; the term was first linked in the rewritten sentence. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Prior to Lythronax being formally named, the future holotype specimen UMNH VP 20200 was noted by Zanno and colleagues in 2013 – this also has the potential to leave readers behind. Maybe just "its skeleton was noted to be" or similar?

Reworded, hope it's better. I think specifying that it's the holotype is important for posterity (in case there are more specimens of Lythronax), but I've cut out the specimen number and the word "future". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• although Lythronax was closer to Tyrannosaurus than other younger taxa like Daspletosaurus or Teratophoneus. – Younger than Tyrannosaurus? But Zhuchengtyrannus is late Campanian but closer to Tyrannosaurus?

Clarified that this concerns the relation of Lythronax to the Tyrannosaurus + Zhuchengtyrannus clade as a whole. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• The placement of Lythronax within Tyrannosauridae was one of the more significant differences between the two similar studies. – Is this true? Placement seems not be too different; the contrasting placement of Alioramini for example seems much more significant. If you decide to keep it, I suggest to clarify what this significant difference is.

I'm not sure about this either. I feel like the difference is more the position of Daspletosaurus spp., which they explicitly compare to Loewen et al. IJReid wrote this text, I think? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph a bit, which also added in more context as far as Lythronax is concerned. Not sure if theres much more than can be added that is relevant to the taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• In 2017, American paleontologists Stephen Brusatte and Thomas D. Carr published – I have the impression that this paragraph is not focused on Lythronax enough. It is mostly about the placement of other taxa (e.g., Alioramini), which are of secondary importance for this article. On the other hand, the placement of Lythronax proposed by this study is not precisely described.

The study itself doesn't talk too much about Lythronax either (even in the supp info), so I'm not sure there's all that much we can say about it anyway. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• In 2016, Paul suggested that Lythronax argestes – I suggest to add "in a popular book". Such sources are not on the same level as peer-reviewed papers, and I think we should make a distinction here.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• During the late Cretaceous – "Late Cretaceous" (upper case) since it is a formal name.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• From these results, Loewen and colleagues suggested that there was significant biogeographic division between northern Laramidian and southern Laramidian forms with limited interchange. – It does not become clear why these results indicate such a division.

Ok, I also have no idea how to make this more comprehensible. Lets think about it if/when others bring it up. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Loewen and colleagues proposed that were was only a single interchange of tyrannosaurids between North America and Asia. – I suggest to mention whether the tyrannosaurids moved from NA to Asia or vice versa, for clarity.

Clarified that it's the former. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• separated by North American genera. – I see what you mean, but I doubt most people will understand.

Tried with "among", better? FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• that there was dynamic and recurrent interchange of tyrannosaurid fauna – suggest to add "between northern and southern Laramidia" for clarity, because there is also the possibility Asia–NA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• The discovery of Lythronax suggests that these characters had appeared at least by 80 million years ago – suggest to add "independently", linked to convergent evolution, if covered by the source.

I don't think the source discusses how it was independent of Tyrannosaurus. Here is the actual quote:

This pushes back the origin of the Tyrannosaurus-style skull morphology or rostrally-oriented orbits and expanded postorbital regions to at least 80 Ma, implying the continuous presence of two distinct cranial morphologies in Laramidian tyrannosaurids for at least 10 million years.

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Lythronax was found in terrestrial sediments – "sedimentary rocks"

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• These sediments – "these rocks"

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's it! Looking very good overall. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, only a few issues left to fix, and I added a few comments. I was thinking whether "typology 1, 2" should maybe be "cladogram 1, 2" instead, as I don't think most people would know the meaning of typology in this context (or at all)? FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The "Topology" lingo must have been OK'd for Elasmosaurus at FAC, right? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like it, we can just wait and see what they say once we get to FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am promoting now, and hope to see this at FAC soon! Congratulations to all authors! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Metric?

How did this end up in metric? It appears to have started out in imperial, which makes sense since it was discovered in Utah, and somehow changed sometime during the FA review. —valereee (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think science articles use the International System of Units first, but I can't find a guideline for it at the moment. Maybe EEng knows? FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do. EEng 12:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait, I guess you want me to actually tell you what it is. WP:UNITS, third top-level bullet. EEng 12:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, thank you! I figured there had to be a reason, since it's a recent FA... —valereee (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies?

FunkMonk, please explain to me what edits I made here are inaccurate? comrade waddie96 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not he but I am aware that stating "Alioramus" instead of alioramins is not a defensible position, duplinking to Tyrannosauroidea is unecessary, and "as of [date]" is not needed since it is as of currently and probably going to stay undecided for potentially years. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, alioramin refers to a clade containing a couple of genera, not the genus Alioramus itself. You linked Tyrannosauroidea under description, but it is already linked under history, under the common name tyrannosaur. Biotic interchange is too general for the intended meaning here, but I redirected Faunal interchange to that article so that we can reinstate the link but use the more specific term, until an article is created for it. I'm not sure why the "as of June 2020" is necessary, why set it up so we have to update it every single month instead of just leaving it open? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, I understand why now. comrade waddie96 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it's nice you engaged on the talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Taxobox photo

Various alternative photos were recently added to the taxobox, and while the first ones were in low res or from bad angles and was reverted, the new ones seems ok. It is still pretty low res, compared to the current infobox image, which is oddly angled, though. What do people think should be the taxobox image? One can be used in the article body instead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Current taxobox photo
• 
  Alternative

WehaveaTrex keeps edit warring without engaging in the discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the alternative is a better composition for a taxobox image, though I'm not sure why there are three different photos as part of its history, instead of each being its own file. More than just one could be usable. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've loathed that ugly image with its aggressively vibrant two-toned background and its clarity oh so obscured by other mounts in the background for years and would love to see it gone, but the alternative is quite a low quality image, making it a bit of a "lesser evil" call for me. That said, the lighting and background of the new one do make it read quite a lot better at thumbnail size, at the cost of its poor resolution making it quite a big downgrade when viewed at full size. I think it's really a question of what we value more, and I think the thumbnail size is more importance as it's what is actually part of the article. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shame it doesn't look very good at anything but thumbnail size, but we can hope a higher res one is available down the line. By the way, it seems to be the exact same mount, just exhibited somewhere else. So it should be possible someone with a better camera gets a picture for us. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Size

Junsik1223, I believe that your addition involves an unreasonable inference. Here is what the paper says:

we performed a simple dimensional analysis on skull elements and compared the results to the same elements on a reconstructed Lythronax skull cast.
[...]
from smallest-to-largest these are 50%, 80%, 100% and 140% the size of the Lythronax standard.

and then

Length estimates were calculated using comparisons with snout-to-tail tip length of the only known articulated Teratophoneus (UMNH VP 21100) as a standard.
[...]
Based on this estimate, the other individuals at the RUQ would measure 1.7, 3.5, 4.8 and 6.1 m.

The length estimate is not based on Lythronax, it is based on Teratophoneus. The only way this would be valid is if Lythronax and Teratophoneus had identical proportions, which you cannot guarantee. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok that explanation actually clarifies my suspicion on your argument. So I'll just remove that info for now. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

But may I ask what was the justification behind the original size estimate? Junsik1223 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean the sources attached to 7.3~8m length and 2.5t body mass isn't a scholarly paper, so I don't see the reasonable inference here either. Junsik1223 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In this case it comes from a describer of the taxon. I agree that it is not particularly rigorous, but precedent says that this is acceptable to cite because it pertains directly to Lythronax. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is best to not put the size estimate at the top of the Lythronax page, since there is no definitive answer as of now. Although the newspaper shows the describers' interpretation of this dinosaur's body size (meaning it is acceptable to site), this estimate is never addressed in a form of scholarly paper and has given no specific justification, so it is not particularly rigorous as you said. For G. S. Paul, he also doesn't exactly clarify the reason behind his estimate either, so both size estimates have no certainty. Thus, in my opinion, it is best that these size estimates just remain in the description section. Junsik1223 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually found a justified source now. <Dinosaur Facts and Figures: The Theropods and Other Dinosauriformes> by Rubén Molina-Pérez, Asier Larramendi, David Connolly, Gonzalo Ángel Ramírez Cruz states that volumetric analysis was done to measure the size of the dinosaurs. This is considered a scholarly source and explicitly justifies the reasoning behind its estimate. I think thhe estimates of Lythronax here should be regarded as a proper size estimate. Junsik1223 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Since it is not peer-reviewed, Dinosaur Facts and Figures is also mildly iffy, but I recall that it is acceptable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Junsik1223, you are making a flurry of edits to many dinosaur articles, uncluding featured ones, without proofreading, formtatting source,s etc., and in some case it seems you misintepret the sources. I think it would be best to suggest the edits you want to make on the talk pages first so they can be evaluated. Much of this text could easily be condensed, more text is not necessarily better, as is the case with your edits to Giganotosaurus which I will have to simplify. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"Dinosaur Facts and Figures" has been refuted as a high-quality source at FAC (because it is a "children's book"). We should not use it, especially not in a FA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Where you did you find the info that the book is for children? Also, isn't it still a better source in that it justified how they came up with the body size estimate? Because the 5~8m estimates, as of now, have no justification really. Junsik1223 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So I have contacted the author of the 2021 study which suggested that Teratophoneus holotype and Lythronax holotype had frontal bones similar in size, resulting in a length of 6.1 meters and body mass of 1 metric ton. He noted that this estimate also applies to the holotype specimen of Lythronax, but he mentioned that the Lythronax specimen might not represent an adult, for most specimens of early tyrannosaurids including Teratophoneus represent subadults. https://m.blog.naver.com/CommentList.naver?blogId=changyu1015&logNo=222810335239 Junsik1223 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Blog comments and all comments in general cannot be cited as they are vulnerable to edits and removal even more so than the blogs they are hosted on. The most reliable reference for size we have is the original description, followed by Paul's work and then the Larramendi and Molina book (which I would argue is not a "childrens book" and more than acceptable to include as a summary of other studies, though less reliable than the work of Paul). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A problem with how these edits are written, though, are that they make it seem like the newest estimate is always the correct one, when we should simply mention the range. And since this is a FA, we need to carefully craft the text, because it looks very messy how it is being added now. As for blogs, we can actually use them if they are written by professionals and are uncontroversial, per Wikipedia:Citing self-published blogs. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)