Talk:Pterodactylus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one.

Comments

What a fascinating article, and on an iconic subject.

WOW, that was fast! It's just today that I've nominated it, also, thanks! Anyway, I've finished with the corrections.

• '"Naturalienkabinett", or nature cabinet' - the Wikilink should be displayed in full as Cabinet of curiosities, as that is its ancestry.

• Edward Cope is a disambiguation page.

• So is Ornithocephalus.

• Many .. were found in England. Perhaps say in which formations (or counties).

• "Holotype specimen of Cimoliopterus" - maybe say it's the jaw or snout.

• 50 pixels really makes the cladogram images very small (hard to see). Perhaps around 80px would be better (it's certainly quite usual); the trees are not especially large.

I've kept the images at 70px, 'cause 80px looked a bit too large.

Many thanks. The tree works a lot better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Preserved fossil specimen of the species Rhamphorhynchus muensteri" - aren't all fossils preserved specimens? The wording doesn't seem necessary and isn't used on any other image.

• "The Solnhofen Limestone is diverse Lagerstätte" - perhaps "consists of" or better "is exposed in".

• "closer related" - "more closely related".

• Maybe wikilink Rhamphorhynchus (or provide a "further" link) at 'Growth and breeding seasons' where the genus is first mentioned.

Rhamphorhynchus is actually already linked in the 'Life history' section.

• "A P. antiquus specimen (AMNH 1942) showing muscle impressions" - the tiny image makes it impossible to see these, even if the reader knows what to look for. Perhaps a) make the thumbnail larger b) use a cropped image to draw attention to the muscles, and c) use an .SVG image (including a cropped bitmap) to provide some graphic help e.g. an outline or arrows to point out the muscles. I suppose some caption engineering would help a little.

The image may take a while, but I'll try to upload a cropped version of it showing the muscle impressions.

Hey, I tried to upload a cropped version of the muscle impressions, but it looks all blurred, so I was thinking of this one (it's actually a fossilized pelvis), I know it has nothing to do with the previous one, but would it still work? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And you'd draw on the muscles? But it doesn't have the impressions ... I think the impressions were quite reasonably sharp on the other image, but perhaps an Unsharp Mask would help (with or without an Edge Preserving Smooth first). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, since you stated that it doesn't have the impressions, it may be inaccurate to put that as the caption? The image itself does sit within the Classification section, so it has nothing related to what the paragraphs say, so it can easily be substituted...? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Now I have no idea what you are talking about. The image originally in the article certainly had impressions; the one you propose above as a replacement doesn't, so it doesn't seem suitable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I actually got confused with what you said before. I'll try with the Unsharp mask for the image then. I apologize for the confusion. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've uploaded a cropped (new) version of the image, is it OK now, or should I do more adjustments? Also, sorry again for the confusion before. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. The new image is fine, though it would be nice to draw the reader's attention to the muscles in the image, with SVG graphics or some sort of explanation of what and where in the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've specified putting "in the chest and wing-membranes" in the caption, since that's where the muscles are, would it work, though? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly helps.

• I see there's no 'In human culture' section. This seems a shame for such an iconic species, which created great excitement on its discovery. Perhaps that should be mentioned; there is indeed Pterodactyl (film); Tolkien stated that Nazgûl#Steeds were "pterodactylic" (see there for citations). Not to mention merchandise, soft toys, etc. The section can be quite brief.

As for the 'In human culture' section, which I think would be better as 'In popular culture', might take time, but I'll start today. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to it.

I've included the 'In popular culture' section, and I think you've already seen it. Should I change anything, though? Or maybe include something more? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The "pterodactylic" Nazgûl#Steeds are certainly noteworthy, and if you look there you'll find a citation ready and waiting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Included, anything else? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, good work. I'm happy to pass this now. It would be great if you could pick one or two articles to review from the GAN list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for the efforts on the review! I'm actually reviewing the article Echinodon, I've just started yesterday with it. Anyways, I'm happy that this iconic creature has passed the GA review, thanks again for the efforts! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)