Talk:Mimodactylus

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Will start soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• the generic name references the MIM Museum – "refers to"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• The only known specimen of this pterosaur (extinct group of flying reptiles) – not that anything needs to be changed necessarily, but I wonder if it makes sense to explain the term "pterosaur" in the body but not in the lead. Probably, at this point, the reader would have looked it up anyways, maybe this explanation is not needed.

Removed, I think we had this talk sometimes before, I added it once because it was asked for at a FAC, but it probably isn't necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• and joint between the skull and jaw flattened – maybe "and the jaw joint flattened"? I think we need an additional "the" in any case?

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• The lead says "Its snout is rounded" but the body says the snout is "not rounded".

Ah, i mixed it up with "broad", fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• The dentition of Mimodactylus differs from that of most other ornithocheiroids. – This is a bit difficult to follow, since "Ornithocheiroidae" is not introduced and also does not appear in the cladogram, and because the following sentences mostly say in which taxa the features are also found, instead of pointing out differences. Maybe remove this sentence?

Removed, it did strike me as a bit odd in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Mimodactylus does not have the lancet-shaped teeth with sideways compressed crowns which are characteristic of istiodactylids, though, – Since this sentence is a direct follow-up of the previous sentence, I think it should not mark a new paragraph.

Right. I've split the section's paragraphs up differently now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• hind wards extending process – maybe "backward protrusion"?

Why not, took it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• the position of the pteroid has been a point of contention among researchers – make clear that this is now about pterosaurs as a whole (I assume)?

Added "in pterosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• and grouped the two together in the new clade Istiodactyliformes as well. – Why "as well"? Which previous study did that?

Removed. It was meant as "also", but not necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• While insectivory could not be ruled out, these researchers found the evidence to most likely indicate a diet of crustaceans – The food section is a bit long and this reads repetitive as it was already stated.

Merged into similar sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• The British palaeontologist Mark Witton found it unlikely in 2013 that istiodactylids and their relatives were especially proficient on the ground, due to their disproportionate limbs and small appendages, though they may have had relatively large thigh muscles. He also found the feet too small in relation to their body size to have been used for climbing or suspension, as had previously been suggested.[10] – I wonder if we really should generalise this to Mimodactylus. Mimodactylus is of a separate family of which Witton had no knowledge when he made that statement. But not sure.

Removed, though the starts off a bit more generally (and Haopterus, the other mimodactylid, was known at the time, and covered in that chapter): "It seems unlikely that any ornithocheiroids, including istiodactylids, were particularly proficient terrestrial animals. Their disproportionate limbs and tiny appendages look ill suited for walking or running, and even though istiodactylid hindlimbs are more proportionate to their forelimbs than those of other ornithocheiroids, they remain offset enough to have probably hindered terrestrial locomotion." FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Reads very well. I particularly like the History of discovery section; Wikipedia seems to be the only place where such information is systematically collected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, this is one of those articles where if there weren't news reports and press releases, there would be very little to say about its discovery just from the published paper. So I definitely think such can be worth including, if it adds unique, contextual information. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The above should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for your great work. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Mimodactylus reconstruction

• ... that Mimodactylus (reconstruction pictured) is the first complete pterosaur from the Afro-Arabian continent? Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54042-z
  • ALT1: ... that Mimodactylus (reconstruction pictured) is thought to have fed on crustaceans, unlike most pterosaurs? Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54042-z
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by FunkMonk (talk) and Elias Ziade (talk). Nominated by FunkMonk (talk) at 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mimodactylus; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• In process of reviewing this one. Hog Farm _Talk 00:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Recent GA by a trusted editor; hooks are interesting and are supported by the sources, when I spot-checked the hook sources noted no copyvio in the hooks. No image in hook so no need to check that. No red flags noted; FunkMonk and Elias Ziade; a QPQ is needed here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is only my third DYK, so I don't remember the details. When I review another DYK, should it be noted here? Not sure were Elias went, but he has more experience. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is only your third nomination then you don't need to do a QPQ; however, should you choose to do one anyway, you can mention it here. However, since you aren't required to do a QPQ yet, if you do chose to do a review, you can just save it for later and use it as your QPQ once you reach five nominations and thus need to do one at the sixth. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've already started something that could evolve into a review here[1], so will return to it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Funk, the QPQ check tool indicates that you had several dyks between 2010 and 2015, is this not right? Hog Farm _Talk 10:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I had one for Spinophorosaurus in that period, and last for Cimoliopterus. I think others made DYKs of some of my GAs in the past, perhaps tagging me, but I would have been a "passive" nominator then. Is there a way to see one's nominations? FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron Does your alternate QPQ checker tool still work? The one that checks nominations instead of credits? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: you can always just check which pages they've created in the Template namespace. This seems to be their third nomination :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

it looks like everything is good to go here then. Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, FunkMonk, and Elias Ziade: Both hooks appearance in the article need citations no later than the end of the sentences. Also, how is the image free? It is attributed to Artwork of Julius T. Csotonyi from this source but I before it can be promoted we need to know for sure that it is a free image. I see this on the website: © 2023 Springer Nature Limited. With this legal notice. Legal notice: Unless otherwise indicated, this Web Site and its contents are the property of Springer Nature Limited Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, FunkMonk, and Elias Ziade: Lightburst (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat the citations in the specific sentences, then, that part wasn't stated in in the abbreviated version of the instructions. As for the image, it was first published in this 2019 paper, not in 2023, so I don't think later publications have any bearing on the original. Nowhere does the caption or article state that this image has a different licence than the rest of the article and its imagery, it simply names the artist (no "courtesy of" or "copyright of"). FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The image question seems settled Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)