Jump to content

Talk:Macroolithus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Macroolithus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that I'm in the oviraptorid egg-area already, might be a good time to review this! FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First thing, I see you have a nice image from a CC licensed paper, maybe more images could be taken from there?
I added one more. I hope that it sufficient; that paper doesn't really have any others that would be appropriate. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new images look good, perhaps swap with the one in the taxobox? That one seemsto have an orange tint that might be removable in Photoshop. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No cladogram?
I thought about it, but none of the cladistic analyses I could find included more than two elongatoolithids, so it wouldn't to helpful for seeing the relationships within Elongatoolithidae, and also the other types of fossil eggs seem to move around a lot. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^Whoops, that's not quite correct; https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app000852014.pdf has other elongatoolithids (Macroelongatoolithus and some unnamed oviraptorid eggs), but they all form a big polytomy, so still not helpful for sorting out the relationships within Elongatoolithidae. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A really minor thing, but there is a guideline that says subjects should "face" the text, which I personally think looks best, so the life restoration could maybe be right aligned, but it's really no big deal.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its eggshell units a fused together" Are?
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the eggs were laid variable environments." In?
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family name and oospecies could be linked at first mention. I think oospecies needs to be explained in parenthesis ("egg-species taxon" or some such) after first mention.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem that some of the circumstantial date and taxonomy info in the description section would be more fit under the history or classification sections?
I believe all of that information is repeated in the history section. Are you saying I should remove it from the description?
Yeah, is there any compelling reason why it (date, classification, range) should also be listed in a descriptive section? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed it. I feel like distribution is helpful to state in the description since the different oospecies have distinct distributions. On a side note, do you think I should talk more about the ecosystems/environments of the different formations in the distribution section? Looking back, it seems a little too brief. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't hurt! FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a PeerJ preprint" I don't think this info is really needed in-text.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the GA Review process already started, was not indicated as such at the WikiCup link. Nice article, I fixed some typos and did minor rewording. With some more proof-reading and corrections (see also the templates I added), it surely classifies as GA imho. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not far, I just have to read the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The thin eggshell, however, could simply be because the eggshell" Is "eggshell" needed twice in succession here?
I replaced the second one with shell. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this image[1] show Macroolithus? I was unsure, because neither the caption or the Commons description even mentions Macroolithus.
Not sure, Wiemann et al. (where I took the image from) only says it is an oviraptorosaurian clutch, with no oogenus or genus assignment. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would kind of assume not since Wiemann et al. probably would have said it explicitly if it were Macroolithus. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much greater degree of ossification than the other" Ossification could be explained.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and several vertebra" Vertebrae, plural. I think this needs fixing in a few placs.
Got it. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "centra and neural arches, but also have ossified zygapophyses" Is there any way these terms could be explained?
Not sure of a concise way to explain those. Maybe a diagram? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the metatarsals", "tibia". Likewise.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resemble those of Heyuannia huangi" I'd say "the oviraptorid Hetuannia huangi" just so the reader is certain.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grew dorsoventrally faster than anteroposteriorly." Not sure most readers would understand this.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also seen in derived" Explain.
Is "advanced" in parentheses sufficient? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exhibit a pathological" Maybe explain.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nearest to the K-T boundary" I think this needs to be spelled out or explained. Also, most readers probably don't know that this is related to an extinction event.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • contrary to the impact hypothesis" I think this could need explanation, this section generally takes for granted that readers know all these terms. Perhaps even state what the implications of an iridium anomaly" is.
I just rewrote the extinction section to perhaps be clearer to the non-expert readers. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clade, synonym, and sediment should be linked.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A fifth oospecies, "M." turolensis, was initially assigned to the oogenus by Amo et al. 2000, but is now classified in the spheroolithid oogenus Guegoolithus." There is presently no descriptive info about this species, so why even mention it under description?
I put it there on the off-chance somebody who knew about M. turolensis but didn't know it had been moved to Guegoolithus and looked on Macroolithus for a description of it would know where to go. Looking back, that seems pretty darn implausible (since I reiterate that information in the history section anyway), so I guess I'll take that part out. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "parataxonomy" What is meant by this?
I added a sentence explanation to the Classification section. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the discovery of an oviraptorid embryo inside an elongatoolithid egg cast doubt on this hypothesis" Seems the first with is wrong here.
Good catch. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "late 90s" I think it's always best to have the century as well (1990s), to leave absolutely no doubt.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs)
  • "dinsoaurs" Whoops! Well, I'll fix that myself, as it is obviously a mistake.
Thanks! :) Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggested that Oviraptor buried its eggs in a mound and then oviraptorosaurs sat atop " This seems a bit strange.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "among modern archosaurs" Explain.
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what most of the info under "Paleobiogeographical interpretations" has to do with paleobiogeography? Seems it would need another title. Much of the info also largely overlaps with text under "Paleobiology and parenting", so perhaps merge some of it up there? Especially the extinction text seems repetitive. The nest burial info also seems to be about paleobiology.
It's more about the history of paleobiological (I guess not really paleobiogeographical, so I just corrected that) interpretations of Macroolithus. I felt like it would better to include outdated ideas about nesting patterns, extinction, etc. as a subsection of the history section rather than in the paleobiology section to avoid any confusion. I cut down on the repetitiveness of the extinction part slightly. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now-defunct oogenus Oolithes" You only state it is defunct in the intro, but looking at its page, there is no indication it is defunct?
Yeah, I've been meaning to fix the article on Oolithes for a while. The whole history of "Oolithes" is kind of convoluted so I've been putting it off. Long story short, all oospecies of Oolithes are classified in different oogenera now. I suppose I ought to have a citation for 'defunct' anyway though. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a citation for the defunct-ness of Oolithes (it is a senior synonym of Testudoflexoolithus). Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, it should also be mentioned in the article body that it is defunct, and the ref should be moved there. There should not be unique info and sources used in the intro only. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro seems short compared to the article, could be beefed up a bit.
Added a few sentences. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And one last thing, before I read the expanded distribution section, what do the scientific names mean?
Thanks for your review! I'll probably not have time to address these issues until the weekend, I have been quite busy this week. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, there is no tiem limit for GA reviews. Seven days is just the minimum. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the distribution section as promised. I cannot yet find a citation for the derivation of the name (it is pretty obvious what it means though: "Macro" (big) + "oolithus" (stone egg)); I'll keep looking. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, not obvious to all readers, I'd think! Anyway, could be nice for the species names too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the description papers for all the oospecies (and a number of other papers that talk about Macroolithus), and Mikhailov 1994 is the only one that gives an etymology (for mutabilis, which means "changeable" in Latin). Would it be acceptable to cite a Greek roots dictionary for the meaning of "macro-" and "-ensis"? Also, I can't find the etymology of "rugustus" - I believe it's based on the Latin "rugosa" (meaning "rough"; the Chinese name is 粗皮, which means "rough skin"), but I am not certain and I have no citation. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think citing dictionaries is fine, Casliber may know more about this, as I think I've seen him use them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added a section. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'd just add it to the history section, but you can do what you prefer. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I like it better as its own section. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we're almost there? Has everything been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you want me to put in a diagram to explain the parts of the vertebra, I believe so. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it's necessary when it's so briefly discussed. Last thing would maybe be that it may be a bit much that the KT boundary stuff is now mentioned three times in different sections? And maybe the new restoration should be right aligned, per the "face the text" guideline, but certainly no biggie. Either way, I'll pass this after you reply. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I moved it to right aligned and put the nest picture on the left (I usually like to have at least one left-aligned image just to spice things up...). As for the heaviness on the KT boundary stuff, I think it is relevant in all of those sections and I deliberately did not put outdated interpretations in the Paleobiology and parenting section (because that might lead to a false impression of their validity), which necessarily made for a little bit of overlap (most of what I wrote in the history section concerns the historical interpretations by Zhao et al.). I think I will rewrite the mention in the Distribution and paleoecology section to be more about distribution though. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will do. :) Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macroolithus&oldid=1198369148"